Misinterpretation (Deliberate?) on Tests and Tenure

Kevin Carey at the Quick and the Ed at the Education Sector, which is part of the Rotherham Empire, misses the point of our post on tenure and testing.

Ed Notes offers a justification for banning the use of student performance data in teacher tenure decisions: Using test scores to estimate teacher effectiveness is methodologically complicated. (This is true). Therefore, it should be outlawed. (This is absurd).

Yes teacher effectiveness is complicated and therefore test results should not be used, or misused. Why outlaw it? Because the practically criminal people running the NYC schools are not to be trusted. But read on, as Carey says:

Most important things, including teaching, are complicated. If we squelch every attempt to understand such things and act on that knowledge, we'll be left knowing very little about very little, which more or less describes the state of knowledge about teacher effectiveness today. Indeed, most teacher policy failures are a function of privileging easily measurable unimportant things, like master's degrees and state certification, over difficult-to-measure important things, like effectiveness in boosting test scores.

Do you understand any of this jargon? Let me translate: I think it means that we know little about teacher effectiveness but let's throw testing for tenure against the wall and see if it sticks. If there's a high body count of teachers who don't get tenure due to something we know very little about, so be it. Us policy wonks need data, data, data.

I do agree with Carey that MA's and state certification mean little in teacher effectiveness. But how come the wonks always use the term "like effectiveness in boosting test scores." I love the word "like." Like what else makes for teacher effectiveness? They always stop at boosting scores - how about, like Johnnie enters a class as a serial killer and leaves tame as a pussy cat but alas, the teacher is a failure and denied tenure because he didn't boost Johnnie's test score. Or the teacher did fabulous science projects with the class which turned many kids onto science but, darn, we just don't know how to measure a rise in enthusiasm.

Carey goes on:

Ed Notes also offers the "it hasn't been tested" argument, i.e. the chicken-and-egg theory of policy obstructionism: it can't be tried because it hasn't been proven; it can't be proven because it hasn't been tried.

I love being called a dreaded "policy obstructionist." The "teacher effectiveness" crowd seem to use the "it hasn't been tested" argument when it comes to class size reduction, i.e. the chicken-and-egg-theory of class size reduction obstructionism, preferring to focus on teacher effectiveness (which is guaranteed to improve with lower class sizes) despite the fact no one has come up with any way to judge other than observation - not a bad way if done objectively. (Here I will be accused of not wanting this method either because I always talk about vindictive principals, but offer the solution of teachers being allowed to call in an independent arbiter. And while I'm on this, I often tell teachers under attack to tape an observation, which seems to make some supervisors incredibly nervous.)

And of course the obligatory attack by Carey on Eduwonkette for calling all the hysteria over the tenure/testing law "union-bashing:"

Meanwhile, some unknown person who claims to be a social scientist but isn't willing to offer any credentials to prove it labels all critiques of the union's role in legally banning evidence of student learning from judgments of teacher effectiveness as "union bashing."
I'd always been under the impression that "science," and thus "social science," involved certain values of empiricism, evidence, and transparency of information..
But maybe "science" means something different wherever they hand out anonymous, theoretical social science degrees, I don't know.

Now, isn't it interesting how Carey on the one hand disparages official teaching credentials
"that most teacher policy failures are a function of privileging easily measurable unimportant things, like master's degrees and state certification, over difficult-to-measure important things, like effectiveness in boosting test scores."

....but attacks Eduwonette for not showing her credentials, without which we obviously can't trust what she says. The quality of what she (or he -wouldn't that be a kick) write is enough for me. Like take this one from Eduwonkette:

Joel Klein, in his op-ed, even blames unions for the existence of achievement gaps:

Protecting grownups rather than making sure students can read and do math is how our country has gotten into the educational mess it's in today. It's the reason we have shameful racial achievement gaps separating our white and Asian students from our African-American and Latino students.

That's why there are no achievement gaps in North Carolina and Texas!

And add Florida and Mississippi and probably a few other non-unionized states around the nation. Gotta love Wonkette, credentials or not.

And what if it turns out that Eduwonkette drives a school bus? Her credentials are what she has to say. Enough for me.

And note the consistent attack on Wonkette by the Rotherham crowd for being anonymous. Boy, will they all be surprised when she turns out to be 13 and in junior high school.

A future post will go into more detail the entire BloomKlein tenure/testing PR sham.

It's Capitalism, Stupid

David Leonhardt's column in today's business section of the Times discusses how so many people in the middle and at the bottom were left out of the boom years. We all know the gap between rich and the rest of us has grown astronomical since the early 70's, the first time in US history this has happened.

So what are reasons according to Leonhardt? I'll let you read his theories here. But one word is missing from the entire article, not surprising given the bias at the Times: UNIONS.

Could it be that the attack on unions spurred on by Ronald Reagan's firing the air traffic controllers 25 years ago has weakened them so much that they can no longer win fights for the higher wages needed to sustain our economy? Add the Democratic Party support for NAFTA and other anti-union breaking rules under Bush and we have the roots undermining the economy in the long run.

As Leonhardt searches for solutions, he neglects the basic rule of capitalism: maximize profits for your company, the rest of the nation and the world be damned. That means the lowest wages you can get away with. If you can get 8 year-olds for 50 cents a day abroad, then bye.

The economy will only be robust when there's a strong union movement to fight it out with the corporations.

Note: I still consider myself a capitalist – a laissez faire capitalist – where there are rules that force a balanced playing field for people to compete. That is NOT what we have. Instead, we have a government, the theoretical arbiter, clearly aligned with the big business interests. And the press, the 4th estate that should also be an arbiter, also pro-business and anti-union. The "paper of record," whether covering business or education, is a prime example.

The Sham of Tenure and Test Scores

Updated 2 pm

With the NY State legislature rejecting BloomKlein's attempt to tie tenure to test scores on the heels of turning down the congestion pricing plan, the attacks from Bloomberg and Klein are coming fast and furious. This is not really about tenure. Principals have the right to delay tenure for teachers and many are so vulnerable, they can pretty much be let go quite easily.

First of all, an enormous number of teachers are not even in the mix. Gym teachers? No tenure if the kid can't pole vault? Music? Kids can't play Bach or sing like Callas? OUT! Computer teachers? Typing teachers? 20 words a minute? or 30? or 5? OUT! So where's the equity?

But let's look at the kinds of classes that would be affected. High school regents would be the only ones at that level. Now we need a system to compare apples to apples. What rules are in effect to adjust for the differences in schools and between different classes in schools? What impact does attendance have? Should teachers of a first period class, where many more kids don't show up, be held to a different standard than other periods? What about teachers of non-regent classes? What tests are they to be judged on?

In elementary and middle school, the tests they are talking about are math and reading. So are only these teachers in the line of fire? Do social studies, science, gym, computer, etc. get off? What about reading with push-in programs? What if the teacher who comes in daily is tenured and incompetent while the classroom teacher is untenured? What about the literacy or math coach? In sports the coaches are the ones to get fired, not the players.

Of course, the pro BloomKlein press will express outrage while ignoring all these angles.

With all these questions left on the table - and I blame the UFT for not raising them publicly to point to the folly of the plan. Unity Caucus slugs will jump on this statement: "See you chronic complainer, give the union credit for using its political muscle to win this." Without battling it out over the ideology and relying solely on the political sphere, they will win some battles but will lose the war.

It is clear there is another purpose on the part of BloomKlein. They know full well the linking of test scores to tenure will have no impact on the kids. It is a political and ideological ploy so they can say they beat the union and were successful in modifying tenure. Kudos from the anti-union right will follow. It's about PR.

This is also about putting pressure on just those untenured teachers who can influence the only results BloomKlein care about - the ones that they can use to bolster their political case that they really, really did close the achievement gap. The message: DO WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO TO MAKE US LOOK GOOD OR YOU WILL NOT GET TENURE!

The next step is to hand out erasers that do not leave a trace.


Update from Leonie Haimson on NYC Education listserve:

I was just interviewed by Marcia Kramer on the teacher tenure/test score controversy – I said basically what I wrote in today’s news wrap-up:

1- standardized test scores alone are not sufficient to judge teachers’ competence, since they have to be examined in relation to a lot of other important factors, including class size and the type of students they have, as well as other evidence of the teacher’s skill and what else is going on in the classroom -- and that this administration cannot be trusted to use this data carefully, given their record on merit pay and school grades.

2- tying teacher tenure to test scores could have very destructive effects, discouraging teachers from taking on struggling or special ed students, and lead to a further loss of morale, with even more test prep replacing real learning.

3- Off camera, I said that a hiatus of two years was good since whatever is decided will be implemented by a new administration that will hopefully be more trustworthy with the use of such data.

Marcia Kramer’s Channel 2 story came out pretty good; except for last line, which is blatantly untrue. Video available here:

For more on this issue, see the blog here. Use test scores for tenure? Not a good idea, with these bumblers.

This Week's Carnival of Education

... is up and running.

Breaking News

James Eterno posts on the ICE blog about how working teachers are now a minority in the UFT and suggests a program for democratic reform of the UFT. There will be zero debate on this issue in all bodies of the UFT, a perfect illustration of James' point.

Under Assualt makes a point about the way schools are staffed today - with a majority of new, lower cost teachers, a recipe for disaster. The BloomKlein attack on union rules and seniority claimed the system was shortchanging school in most need as teachers used union rules to gravitate to the better schools (meaning easier places to teach.) Then their minions place senior, higher salaried people under assault, followed by a school funding formula that puts a penalty on schools that hire teachers with higher salaries. They used the language of the civil rights movement to get the black community on board - see, your kids are being denied the experienced teachers. So, take a look at the schools and tell us what has happened. I bet that under BloomKlein there's less experience in the schools than ever. So they change tune - "see, we now have a young, committed teaching corps. So what if many leave. We'll just train a new crop."

Teaching is all about testing anyway and in the factory model you don't need the same level of skills in classrooms under the complete control of the teachers - the term being used is the de-skilling of teachers.

1968 REVISITED: Ocean Hill-Brownsville

Lots of meat here. This one should be a "fun" event. I'm not sure the statement in the announcement that local communities ever had control of the schools is accurate.

I went on strike in '68 but did not know anything about nuthin' then. A few years later I met many of the gang that crossed the line and worked with them politically. I understand their position. There's plenty of blame to go around on both the UFT and community control side and I'm not sure what I would do if I were back then with my current knowledge of the UFT - my instinct is that if I intended to organize teachers in the UFT crossing the line is death. If you disagree with the strike, work to provide people with a balanced view and you can't do that when you are looked at as a scab. But then again, if you wanted to work with the community, as many teachers did then, staying out was also death. Oy vey!

This event will present only one side of the issue, but I will be there to get a better read. I'm currently reading Kahlenberg and Podair's book on the strike, which is much more balanced than RK.

I might even write about '68 one day - but only from my fall-out shelter.

One of the fun ironies is that the old lefty guard of the former (and now bought out) New Action Caucus all crossed the lines in '68 and now traipse through the 52 Broadway with impunity. Thus, Randi's "liberal generosity." But we've always said she has no real ideology and it's all about what politics she sees is necessary to firm up Unity power - like having New Action on board with the paltry vote totals really has an impact.

No matter what she's done, that more than anything is what would make Shanker turn over in his grave. "Better dead than red" was one of Al's major themes. Some old-line Unity Caucus still seethe when they see the New Action crew around. But I do too - for other reasons.

Announcement:

1968 REVISITED: Ocean Hill-Brownsville
The Struggle for Quality Public Education: 1968-2008

Stanley Aronowitz, Sally Lee, Edwin Mayorga, Roberta Thomas & Jitu Weusi

Co-sponsors: New York Coalition of Radical Educators & Teachers Unite

In 1968, Ocean Hill-Brownsville, Brooklyn, was the site of an experiment that gave local communities control of their public schools. The controversy sparked from this movement still resonates throughout the city. This panel discussion will explore the political moment that gave rise to the community control experiment and will attempt to compare it to today's context. How are NYC Communities responding to the current mayoral control of our public schools? How do these contrasting forms of school governance impact classroom teaching and learning?

Panelists include: Stanley Aronowitz, author of Education Under Siege: The Conservative, Liberal, and Radical Debate over Schooling; Sally Lee, Teachers Unite; Edwin Mayorga, New York Coalition of Radical Educators; Roberta Thomas, Independent Commission on Public Education (ICOPE) and Jitu Weusi, Teacher in Ocean Hill Brownsville.

The Brecht Forum

451 West Street

(Between Bank and Bethune off of the West Side Highway)

212-242-4201

www.brechtforum.org

Thursday, April 10
7:30 pm

Sliding scale: $6/$10/$15
Free for Brecht Forum Subscribers

The Rising Costs of Health Care and NYC Union Contracts

Tuesday April 22 at 6 PM.
Brooklyn Transit Wheelers Club
14 Williams Ave (corner of East NY Ave.)

Hello Friends:
Please check out the attached flyer.

It would be wonderful if you could attend this very important health care forum. I know many of you are already familiar with GHI-HIP's plans to privatize; however, your support would be greatly welcomed and could help opposition movements gain traction in their attempts to defeat the plan to privatize 93% of city workers' health care insurance.

City unions have remained virtually silent on the issue because they have plans to reap millions of dollars from a pool of conversion money.

The intent of this forum is to raise worker consciousness about a serious health care issue and to follow it up with a number of public demonstrations.

More info about these demonstrations will follow in the coming weeks.

It is also my hope that my UFT brothers and sisters will come out and show their support at the forum and the proposed demonstrations. This issue is important to teachers and can, I think, make inroads toward organizing ourselves to resist and overcome Unity Caucus' lack of effort in seriously challenging the DOE's attempts to privatize and destroy our school system as well as Unity's stranglehold on antidemocratic procedures and willingness to repeatedly engage in give-backs with the DOE.

Thanks.

John Powers, Chapter Leader, Liberation HS in Brooklyn.
P.S. I will speak at the forum.

Was the Nation Really At Risk?

... Twenty Five Years Later

Richard Rothstein has done some work on "A Nation At Risk" report which started the current ed "reform" movement. Standards and one-way accountability (for schools and teachers only) followed. Many of us in the anti-standardista movement (see Ohanian) have suspected all along this was a business/political plot to begin the private take over of the public school system. And they seem to be doing pretty well. Unfortunately, our own union, the AFT/UFT have played an integral role in their success.

Richard Kahlenberg's "Tough Liberal" bio of Shanker states:
Diane Ravitch called it the most important education reform document of the twentieth century. And Al Shanker's role in the report's reception was pivotal."
Shanker stated his support for the report in a major speech at the NY State United Teachers convention on April 30, 1983. Teachers should not dismiss reforms they had long resisted, so long as reforms are tied to higher teacher salaries and infusion of new funds in education. (Kahlenberg, p. 276). Of course, Kahlenberg, funded by Eli Broad, the Century Foundation, etc. thinks Shanker's support was an even better thing than white bread.

Shanker's embrace... represented an enormous departure from past AFT policy. Here was a major labor-union leader endorsing a report that said public education was in trouble, proposed merit pay, had the strong backing of business, deemphasized the inportance of labor's equality agenda, and put emphasiss on all kids rather than the poor." (p. 278.)

Voila- No Child Left behind.

The whole idea was explained by Shanker as a way to forestall vouchers. As was his charter school idea. But we'll go into that another time.

The problem was that Shanker spent the rest of his life pushing the reforms without the funding (again, class size reduction is nowhere in the equation.) Not that we believe the reforms being pushed would ever work, even with more funding.

Note that teacher salaries have risen, but in exchange for contract givebacks and longer days and school years, not a raise in most books. To Shanker (and Weingarten) being able to claim teachers make more was OK. In their world, the professionalization of teachers (an idea which separates them from other unions - like, horrors, the idea of a general strike with other workers is oh, so left) means making teaching more of a full-time job in exchange for money. Many teachers do not agree.

When Al Shanker signed onto the results in 1983, he created the alliance with the business community and doomed the teacher movement to follow along. Call it "reform without funding." It cemented what many of us teaching in NYC since the late 60's saw happening - the UFT had already given up the ghost of fighting for the serious level of funding needed for reforms that would work - especially lowering class size, an issue we in the opposition were constantly raising.

We heard all sorts of arguments why this couldn't happen. The "no space" case was laid to rest when the UFT sat by without a whimper as schools were closed and sold off after the 1975 fiscal crisis. At least three in my district (14) were handed to the Hasidic community and they're still in use.

You know the drill. It's all about low expectations and lack of standards and lack of quality teachers. Fix those and "voila" the so-called achievement gap will be closed. (We agree there's a gap, but this expression has been misused.)

The nation-wide mania for ed reform has turned public schools into a forced factory model with federal mandates forcing states local school districts, schools, school leaders, and teachers into a rigid test-driven agenda where they will be rewarded and punished according to how they carry out these mandates.

This model includes high stakes testing, frequent and heavy-handed monitoring, forcing specific educational programs on schools, closing down public schools, hiring and firing teachers and supervisors based on student achievement, forcing school systems to adopt longer school days and years, punishing senior teachers, shifting students to private schools and hiring private contractors to take over functions that were formerly done through the public systems.

The stated rationale is that our education system is failing too many children and only a top-down overhaul will change this. A corollary to this is that only disinterested researchers (rather than experienced educators) can determine how to make the system work. Teachers are the enemies of reform because instead of caring about children or education, they put their own self-interest first: protecting their jobs, high salaries, and work rules that make life easier for them.

Ultimately, the focus is on teacher unions - that they are a major obstacle to reform: Work rules limiting class size and time in the classroom, protection of incompetent teachers, inflexibility in regard to teaching methods.

Eduwonette asked: Has "A Nation at Risk" Done More Harm Than Good?

Why? First, Rothstein argues, the report wrongly concluded that student achievement was declining. The report mistook the changing composition of SAT test takers for a half a standard deviation decline in SAT scores since the 1960s. Second, Risk placed the blame on schools for national economic problems over which schools have relatively little influence. While education surely plays a part in economic growth, he shows that our economic vicissitudes are driven by factors much larger and more complex. Third, he writes, Risk ignored the responsibility of the nation’s other social and economic institutions for learning.

Rothstein concludes:

A Nation at Risk was well-intentioned, but based on flawed analyses, at least some of which should have been known to the Commission that authored it. The report burned into Americans’ consciousness a conviction that, evidence notwithstanding, our schools are failures, and a warped view of the relationship between schools and economic well-being. It distracted education policymakers from insisting that our political, economic, and social institutions also have a responsibility to prepare children to be ready to learn when they attend school.

The full Rothstein report from the Cato Institute is here.

That Shanker bought into it was significant and ultimately sold out teachers. The Democratic party joined in, with the Clintons and Shanker forming an alliance. What's needed today is a counter attack by progressive reformers, who have been termed "status quo defenders" by the regressive ed reformers, who have misused the language of the civil rights movement, with Mayor Bloomberg actually comparing some of his work in NYC ed reform to Martin Luther King.

See Leonie Haimson here and Dan Brown's commentary here and Elizabeth Green's report in the NY Sun, where whe quoted Bloomberg: "We are doing the things, I think, that if Dr. Martin Luther King was running the New York City school system, he would have done. And I think that if you were running the New York City school system, you would have done."

Unfortunately, many in the black community have bought into this argument. Our job is to reacapture the language and policies of true reform. Come to our Teachers Unite forums on April 15 and May 8 to join the debate.

Bronx Green Dot Principal...

... report from the trenches

A recent news report (sorry, lost the source) about the new Green Dot/UFT Partnership school:

Ashish Kapadia, former assistant principal for organization and supervision at the Eximius College Preparatory Academy, a College Board school in the Bronx, will head the Green Dot school. He was chosen after an extensive search involving more than 100 candidates interviewed by a team of Green Dot principals and staff. Born in the Bronx, Kapadia graduated cum laude from the University of Chicago and went on to earn master's degrees from New York University and Queens College at the City University of New York. He also taught for seven years at Jane Addams High School in the Bronx, specializing in government, economics and history.

This report on Kapadia's history came in over the Ed Notes transom. Other evaluations are welcome and should be added to the comments section:

Is the best candidate that "an extensive search" could find?
Ashish Kapadia's appointment speaks to how thin the ranks of would-be administrators are.
He was a Social Studies teacher at Jane Addams HS. ("Specializing in government, economics and history"???) For a while he taught an honors class (not AP, though). He was COSA for a few years until 6/06, and then Senior Advisor until 6/07. (That date is not a typo.)
His mantra was, in regard to the concerns of students: "I don't care!" (This is a direct quote.) He also was baseball coach.
He was not active in the UFT chapter. At Addams, he had no track record of any interest in partnering with the UFT, yet now he's going to be in charge of a school that is a partnership with the union.
He left Addams at the end of the last school year (2007), and hasn't been AP (at Eximius, or anywhere else) for even one school year.

ED NOTE: After an "extensive search" for a principal of the UFT middle school charter (housed at George Gershwin - 166, the junior high I attended) the choice turned out to be Drew Goodman, the son of former UFT district reps Peter and Joan Goodman. Peter still shills for the UFT on the Edwize and Ed in the Apple blogs. So far, Drew has a good rep, as opposed to the principal of the UFT elementary charter.

March Delegate Assembly Notes...

... removed at the request of the author. Contact Teachers for a Just Contract for a copy: JustContractUFT@aol.com

I preserved the comments:

NYC Educator said...
It sounds surreal. The whole 55/25 thing was touted as a great victory if only we would accept the 05 contract with the sixth class, the longer day and year, the permanent building assignment, the inability to grieve LIFs, the right to unpaid suspension based on hearsay evidence, and essentially giving back every single professional gain we'd earned since I began teaching.

And we were told the reason we didn't even get cost of living for that was our noble refusal to reduce rookie salaries.

Then we found we also had to take merit pay. And then we found that we would indeed reduce rookie salaries by 1.8% for up to 27 years.

And no one told us that NYSUT has a 55/25 bill with no penalty for anyone either.

That Ms. Weingarten and her patronage mill would support the "for profit" designation and merger is simply unconscionable. Her remarks that she does not know what will happen indicate the obvious--she doesn't care what will happen.

No wonder she thinks leading the largest teacher union in the country is a part time job.


Socratic method:
I don't understand the objection to merit pay. Can someone please explain it? It seems like merit pay is a good way to get more money into the hands of the good teachers, and out of the hands of the people who you say shouldn't have ever been granted tenure.

Anonymous
Socrates, I teach in Florida where there is merit pay. Here, It is based solely on children's tests scores and gives an unfair advantage to the teachers in better areas or with the "top" kids.
It is unfair!
We need to unite for additional funds for ALL teachers!

Anonymous said...
If there is merit pay, why would any teacher take a chance and teach a difficult class? It's much easier to go to a wealthier neighborhood where virtually all the kids will pass and say how brilliant you are as a teacher.


Socrates :
Well, those are two very narrow notions of merit pay. If merit pay were based on more than just test scores, and if the part that was just based on test scores was based on gains rather than absolute scores, you'd see everyone signing up to teach the lower classes in the poorest neighborhoods.

ed notes online
1. Name some factors beyond test scores.
2. If based on gains - kids learn at different rates. Or attendance factors? Or some special ed kids? Or disruptive behavior problems? What about losses - say a kid is absent 100 days - should the salary be cut?
3. As we've pointed out - it is not whether a school is good or bad and whether merit pay will attract teachers to a school -- what about all the private school and Catholic school teachers in NYC who are lower paid -- just go to a public school and get higher pay and more benefits - few seem to do it. Why not if money would attract these teachers (who must be superior because I bet their scores are high)?

Socratic Method
1. Rubric-based principal evaluations, peer evaluations, and/or 3rd party evaluations. I'm sure smarter people than I could come up with lots of others.

2. I'm not recommending that any one factor constitute the entirety of the merit-pay evaluation. And nothing will be exactly perfect and free of defects, but just about anything will be better than the current system. The system could be fine-tuned, but yes, special ed kids probably learn slower, so adjustments to the amount of gains required for a bonus could be made. Plus, if the evaluations listed in #1 came back really positive but the group of kids happened to be particularly hard to move, the other measured factors besides the test scores should reflect that.
3. Merit pay isn't the whole answer, but it's part of the answer. Discipline needs to be improved, for sure, but great teachers can handle just about any discipline problem, so do what it takes to attract such people to the toughest schools. I'll tell you what doesn't attract such people: the knowledge that they'll have to toil away next to someone who does no work but gets more money by account of them being older.

ed notes online
It's not only not a partial answer, it is a negative. Smater people thanyou HAVE NOT been able to come up with something - what's been holding them back?

So private and Catholic schools give merit pay?

What's better than the current pay system - which by the way is in operation for the police force and many other municipal services - do you think you will be safer if cops get merit pay?

Try an experiement. Lower class sizes in a bunch of places and pay merit pay in another. The merit pay kids might even score higher on the narrow high stakes tests. See which group of kids get the broadest based education with the most knowledge.

And are you talking about a serious chunk of change like they are giving principals for getting high scores? how is that merit system working out by the way? Ask principals behind closed doors and many of them laugh.

Fred Arcoleo Hosting at WHCAP

Hey, folks!
Just a shout out to tell you I'll be GUEST HOSTING an open mic this Friday, April 11th in my home 'hood, Washington Heights/Inwood. It's called ONE MIC LOUNGE and it's sponsored by WHCAP,Washington Heights Community Arts Project, a grass-roots neighborhood arts organization that has been supporting & nurturing uptown arts and artists (visit them @ myspace.com/whcap).*
I am thrilled, excited, and just plain charmed to be lending my support to this bi-weekly event.
And it's NATIONAL POETRY MONTH! So bring your poetry and your music, your hearts, minds, and hands to the Heights this Friday! Support local artists, young & old, black, latin, & white, as they develop their craft.
I was at the debut of this series and the performers were rocking the Heights! A good deal of socially conscious culture.

If you're interested in performing, email whcap118@gmail.com to get on the list.
Since we're uptown,our theme this time will be LIFT UP YOUR VOICE!! so COME ON UPTOWN AND JOIN US!!

ONE MIC LOUNGE
Friday, April 11th
8-11 PM
Café Espresso
207th St. & Broadway
Last stop on the A Train

ONE MIC LOUNGE takes place very 2nd and 4th Friday of the month.
I hope to see you Friday...

FORWARD!!
: )
Fred
"We're turning whispers into crystals
coming out of the shadows
turning empty dinner plates into cymbals
our charge into battle"
- "Making Fire"

*WHCAP's mission: We aim to promote solidarity and uplift inner-city communities by enhancing awareness of the arts within them and creating interactive artistic experiences.

Fred Arcoleo Is the chapter leader of HS for Health Careers & Sciences on the Geroge Washington HS Cacmpus.

A Love Letter to the NY Times

Under Assualt discusses the lack of classroom teacher voices in the press.
And sends a letter to one of the eleven NY Times education reporters.

School Safety

Guest Editorial by
Sally Lee
Executive Director
Teachers Unite
April 4, 2008

School safety is largely sold to the public as the need to guard teachers from students, or sometimes the “good kids” from the other ones. Regardless of rationale, it is hard to imagine educators, students and parents demanding that the presence of poorly trained police, who are held accountable to seemingly nobody, is the best strategy for creating safe learning environments. Teachers know that the key to fostering a violence-free school is embracing the input of all youth and parents, who—if given the choice—would undoubtedly choose proactive solutions such as: small class sizes for all, rich after-school programs, innovative peer mediation initiatives, and increased support services for children with complex learning and emotional needs.

Unfortunately, New York City, like school districts across the country, continues to resist this proven model. In January, school safety agents handcuffed Denis Rivera, a 5-year-old special education student, for acting out in his kindergarten class. In October, East Side High School principal Mark Federman was arrested by school safety agents after he asked them not to humiliate a student in front of her classmates and teachers. What possible reasons are there for the virtual silence from our city government in response? The stalled Student Safety Act would require quarterly reporting by the Department of Education and NYPD to the City Council on school safety issues, including incidents involving the arrest, expulsion or suspension of students. It would provide the public with raw data to study the impact of disciplinary and security policies and practices, and encourage the crafting of more effective policies.

The act also would extend the jurisdiction of the Civilian Complaint Review Board to include complaints of misconduct levied against school safety agents, NYPD personnel assigned to provide security in the schools. More than 5,000 school safety agents are assigned to the city's schools, but there is currently no meaningful mechanism for parents and students to report safety agent abuse. The city council is in the privileged position to bring transparency and accountability to New York City school safety.

Educators often feel powerless to expose the violent dynamics between school security and students when they know blame will fall back on the staff and students in their school rather than the system that is culpable. The teachers I speak with come from the range of school situations across the city. They all name the same source causing the problems in their schools: a climate of hostility that flows directly from the top of the Department of Education to their students. The tone of this administration can be seen in recent budget cuts, ludicrous testing and evaluation methods, and biased hiring policies that favor white recent college graduates and generally penalize experienced educators. This climate is often demonstrated by an individual school’s inconsistent approach to discipline, a useless practice of punitive and ultimately damaging suspensions, and underpaid school safety agents who sometimes harass and intimidate students.

Meanwhile, there are public schools that should be studied and celebrated citywide for their success in fostering cultures where trust and respect reign. The Julia Richman Education Complex, which harmoniously houses four high schools, a middle school and an elementary school, has been cited by the New York Civil Liberties Union and the National Economic and Social Rights Initiative as a model in school safety that respects and honors the lives of students and staff. Mayor Bloomberg has rewarded their achievements by arranging a deal with Hunter College to buy the building and kick the schools to a largely inaccessible corner of Manhattan.

It is time for the bare bones of a reasonable safety policy to be put into place. The city should invest in the investigation of innovative and educationally-sound strategies that foster school cultures and trust among students, and it must put accountability measures into place for the police and para-police force roaming our public schools in the name of safety for all.

Bloomberg Expands Congestion Pricing Plan to Schools

Gary Babad writes on the nyceducation public school parents listserve:
For those who thought congestion pricing might be off topic on this
blog, check out this GBN News story.

Randi and Al

Update: Some audio and video of a Kahlenberg "Tough Liberal" appearance at NYU on April 1 is posted at David Bellel's blog.

Education Notes has been exploring some of the roots of the alliance of the business community and the teacher unions. It did not begin with mayoral control in Chicago or New York. It began in the early 1980's and the leading advocate of much of what we are seeing today was AFT/UFT president Albert Shanker. The monster has grown in a way that has undermined the very teacher union movement in which he played a major role.

It is no accident that Richard Kahlenberg's hagiography of Shanker, Tough Liberal, was released in this climate as a way to justify Shanker's leadership of the educational reform movement that has so devastated teacher unionism at the basic level and reversed so much of what was won. (See NYC Educator on the NY Times article on Weingarten for a superb summary of these losses.) This weekend we will begin publishing excerpts from the book as a way to examine some of the deeper connections between teacher unions and the "reform" movement and to demonstrate that the ball started rolling down the alley long before Weingarten came into power.

"What would Al do today?" This is a refrain we often hear, with the hint that we wouldn't be in this pickle if he were around. I don't buy it. I have been a critic of Weingarten, but was also a critic of Shanker for many of the same reasons. One difference between them is that Shanker dismissed critics like they were fleas, whereas Weingarten often takes things personally. After one particularly acid email exchange with her in which she practically accused me of abusing her, I responded with "It's politics, not personal. Al always understood that. You don't."

Weingarten's attitude towards criticism and her consequent attempts to make it appear she is appeasing everyone is one of her major flaws. "Like water rolling off the back" is not a phrase that is part of her vocabulary. Some say, "She just wants to be loved by everyone." Maybe. But it runs deeper than that. Shanker was not only a political animal, he was also a severe ideologue. Weingarten has a very broad, flexible ideology that always seems up for grabs. For instance, she has changed from support of the Iraq war to opposition. Shanker would still be out there. But then, the AFT/UFT is so tied to the Clintons, a relationship that was started by Shanker in the 80's when Clinton was governor, maybe Shanker would have modified his position in relation to Hillary's campaign. I somehow doubt it. (He believed the US should never have withdrawn from Vietnam.)

At the AFT, Weingarten will stay within the broad guidelines Shanker laid down and continue to cooperate with the very people looking to destroy teacher unionism at the ground level. By this, I mean in the schools. The institution of teacher unions controlled by massive bureaucracies is only being attacked by the right wing. The UFTs' partners are Democratic party people and they understand the need for the union structure to be there to help sell "the plan" and control the rank and file membership.

The AFT is in many ways is a lighter job than being president of the UFT. Doing both is a challenge. A major danger Weingarten faces is that water that just won't roll off her back.

Quack! Quack!


Ed Note: Come to hear Lois Weiner explain a lot of this background and put things into context at the Teachers Unite forum at Julia Richman HS complex (67th and 2nd Ave) on April 15 at 5 PM.

Francis Lewis HS Teacher Responds to NY Post article

Read it here.

April 2008 - More Puff From the NY Times on Weingarten

Reading Jennifer Medina in today's NY Times on Randi Weingarten's coming ascension to the AFT presidency (posted on Norms Notes) misses so many bases, we can only call it another puff piece. Oh, where to start?

You might ask: how do your charges that the Times is an agent of BloomKlein jive with a puff piece on Weingarten? Ed Notes readers are familiar with our thesis that Tweed and the UFT are both peas in the same pod and the bombast is just that. "Watch what Weingarten does, not what she says," is our mantra. The Times only talks to the top level people at Tweed and the UFT and pees on the peons.

Remember my post last week (AERAPlaning) about an AERA session with Medina, Alexander Russo and Eduwonk – Andrew Rotherham where when I asked how come we never hear the voices of classroom teachers? Medina responded, "We want to talk to teachers, but they don't want to be on the record." The entire room nodded.

So I avidly searched though the article looking for one teacher quote. I found favorable quotes from anti-union Rod Paige, Rotherham, and the best one of all from conservative Hoover Institute fellow Eric A. Hanushek "gushing with praise for Ms. Weingarten, and promising to do all he could to support her bid to become the president of the AFT. Just one thing, he added with a laugh: "I don’t know if that’s good for your image."

It's not Eric. At least among the NYC teacher corps who have been shredded during Weingarten's tenure. But it's wrong to blame Weingarten alone. Read Kahlenberg's bio on Shanker to see how Al was the architect of so much of what Weingarten is doing and will do as AFT President. He received the same kind of praise from the business community in the 80's and 90's and is considered the godfather of much of the current ed reform that is coming from Democrats.

The surface level analysis in the Times certainly missed this important point – that Weingarten's imprint on the AFT will be mostly style as she continues long-term policies. As to the point that the AFT will take a stronger stand on NCLB, which they supported all along, it has become politically untenable to Weingarten not to oppose it. Another point the Times missed – that Randi goes in the direction of the political current.

I talked at the AERA session about the numerous teacher blogs out there, many of them critical of both Klein and Weingarten. I know, I know. The view at the Times is that these blogs are six people talking to each other. But the numbers of readers is not the issue. When it is clear they are coming from the schools, they demonstrate the depth of feeling out there and represent some level of where teachers in the schools are at. Certainly, the views at NYC Educator where both he and Reality-Based Educator, or Chaz School Daze, or Pissed Off Teacher, or Have a Gneiss Day, or Under Assault etc, etc, etc, (see our blog roll) are just a few examples of the depth of hostility towards Weingarten (and Klein) by teachers.*

I avidly searched the Medina piece for any sign that she tried to talk to any of these people. I'm still looking.

* So why should the Times talk to Weingarten critics when she wins election so overwhelmingly? Again, surface reporting. A weak opposition(especially since she bought out New Action the old opposition) that gets only 20% of the people who voted is not an adequate way to express the deep-seated anti-Weingarten feelings in the schools. More important is the low vote totals Weingarten received from working teachers in all divisions despite controlling all the communications and personnel machinery of the UFT that failed in bringing out a bigger vote for her - only 22% of 70,000 voted.

The ugly numbers (rough and rounded and including the numbers from New Action - some people were confused and still thought they were opposed to Randi) in her vote totals :

Elementary: 7000 votes out of 37,000 teachers
Middle School: 1800 votes out of 13,000 teachers
High School: 2800 out of 20,000 teachers
Total Randi votes: 13000 out of 70,000, a pretty weak endorsement.

You can check out the results for yourself in our comparison chart for the 2004 and 2007 elections. By not putting in a clear successor (a major error that is one area that she has strayed from the Shanker/Feldman script) she is indicating she will run again for UFT Pres. in 2010. Maybe she will get more people to vote for her next time – absence does make the heart grow fonder. I'm missing her already.

Oh! And self-proclaimed ed coomentator/Democrat/hedge hog fund manager Whitney Tilson seems to like her. We recently had some fun with Whitney.

ATR Handbook from Under Assault

GET IT HERE

Chaz's School Daze: I AccuseThe Union Of Eroding Teacher Rights & What They Need To Do To Reverse It

Chaz's School Daze: I AccuseThe Union Of Eroding Teacher Rights & What They Need To Do To Reverse It

Mind the Gaps

Philip Kovacs at the Educator Roundtable posted this video about gaps beyond the bogus ed reformers' fav expression - Drumroll please - THE ACHIEVEMENT GAP!!!
Now for the real gap. Presenting ---

The Disparity Gap

When Eduwonks Attack

Andrew Rotherham and others exercised about some of Eduwonkette's surgical strikes at the heart of their pro-everything BloomKlein all the time, have thrown barbs at her for remaining anonymous, acting like there's no connections between the long reach of their Bloomie hero vindictiveness and someone who might one day look for a job. The fact that she asked me to check out the Rotherham/Russo/Medina/Colvin session at AERA (is Andy miffed that she may not have graced him with her presence) somehow taints her with my supposed lunacy.

Note that I am joined in my anti-everything NYC lunacy by such esteemed colleagues as NYC Educator, Leonie Haimson, Diane Ravitch and a whole core of NYC teacher bloggers who are beyond outrage at the phony ed reform movement. And probably 90% of the NYC teaching corps.


Here is Rotherham's silly post this on the Eduwonk blog.
The Wire
Not to rehash this entire debate but if Eduwonkette and Education Week want us to believe she's just some dispassionate observer of the education scene, especially the scene in New York City, so anonymous journalism is OK in this case, then it might not be such a good idea for her to use anti-everything NYC ed activist Norm Scott as her stringer...kinda, you know, blows her cover...but I did like her coverage!

Eduwonkette responded with this:
Marry Me, Eduwonk!: Boys, watch and learn from a Clinton-certified Don Juan - the passive aggressive flirting, truculent pet names, salacious locker room gossip, and wonky bickering all make me hot. Sure, you're already married - but after #9, polygamy is the new prostitution in New York.


I left this comment on his blog:
You don't read enough. I'm not only anti-everything NYC, but anti-everything Chicago and anywhere else that the phony reform movement to turn schools into factories is in operation. When it is clear that the PR expression "Children First" is really "Children Last" then you look at what's really going on behind the PR and oppose the entire program of BloomKlein.

I'm proud to be part of the NYC community where a host of respected teacher bloggers are on the same page as I am, in addition to influential parents on the NYC public school parents blog who have been persistent critics of the Bloomberg/Klein administration. Someone should point to a similar outpouring of support from parents and teachers in NYC for the mayor.

But then again, why listen to teachers and parents? You mentioned in your session at AERA that your survey shows teachers don't know much about educational policy. You know – NYC teachers are just a little busy marking those 150-170 papers a day from overcrowded classes and those 10 hour days the heroic "quality" teachers are expected to put in to save the world to have much time for these little debates.

As for Eduwonkette, whatever research she comes up with to support what we feel in our gut, is welcome. Why not take the research she puts out there and pick that apart instead of the irrelevant issue as to whether she is anonymous or not? No one seems to care except you and other pro-everything NYC people who get their words thrown right back in their faces and want to flush her out for purposes that seem awful suspicious.

Message from TAG: Weingarten - Failed Labor Leader

UPDATED April 2

The message below was sent from Teachers Advocacy Group (TAGNYC). They blame Weingarten, perhaps not realizing the longstanding position of the UFT regarding people branded fairly or unfairly as "bad" teachers. The UFT has always been concerned about being seen as protecting teachers who have been labeled as "poor" for fear of negative publicity. The Richard Kahlenberg Shaker bio reports that as far back as the 1969 contract, "...a provision for the development of objective criteria of professional accountability" was agreed to by Shanker, who said, "those who can't be improved and who are functioning at a very poor level [what are the criteria?], we're going to have to have the courage to sat that...you may be good at some other thing, but you're not good at this."

Notice the use of the word "we're." Who, me kimosabe? All in the name of what I consider a phony professionalism. Don't get me wrong. Under proper conditions, teachers could play such a role and I would be all for teachers making these decisions - if they had control of the school environment. (I'll get into what I mean by this in a future post.) But they don't. Therefore, the union's job is to defend every teacher rigorously and leave it to some other agency to take care of incompetent teachers. I would favor a body independent of the DOE and the UFT.

Again from Kahlenberg (p. 288): Peer review was common among professors, doctors, and lawyers, who police themselves.Shanker said: "it would be the first time in the history of American education that teaches would govern themselves."

How does Shanker equate peer review of teachers with these professions, which have a higher level of control than teachers ever could have? And by the way, how many doctors have you heard of being "peer reviewed" out of the profession? In the early 80's Shanker said, "a lot of people who have been hired as teachers are basically not competent." Shanker was selling peer review as an alternative to threats to abolish tenure.

The "bad teacher and the unions that protect them is the cause of all the ills of urban public ed" argument is a bogus one. How do you explain the achievement levels in right to work states like Florida where unions have so much less control?

How about your own education experience? Think of your own teachers. How many extraordinary teachers did you have? How many horrors? How inspired or damaged were you by either end of the scale of teacher quality? Somehow many of us survived the bad teachers. I saw some kids in my school have one excellent teacher after another and those that would do well did and those that wouldn't do well didn't.

Teachers guts and experience tell them this is all a crock. Some young teachers just starting out see some impact in the early years. It took me about a decade to see the long-term results as kids started drifting back as they grew up. That's how you get some perspective.

The public seems in much more danger from incompetent police, doctors, lawyers and politicians (see one George Bush) than from incompetent teachers - the worst of whom are often driven out of teaching by the daily failure of facing kids' scorn. Or they just go into administration and abuse teachers who actually can do the job.

Though at times it may make your skin crawl, I recommend reading the Kahlenberg 400 page apology for Shanker's actions. That Al Shanker and the AFT have been promoting this claptrap surprises even veteran NYC teachers. Weingarten is just following a script laid out a long time ago.

Anyway, here's the message from TAG.

Weingarten: Failed Labor Leader

Randi Weingarten is looking to her new career as head of the AFT. That much larger pool of teachers must understand what they are getting. A failed labor leader. Randi, through her position, is in an excellent position to advocate for children and to negotiate health and welfare benefits for her membership. How well she performs either of these two functions demands future critical evaluation. What we address here is her inability to function as a labor leader. Make no mistake. Teachers are members of the labor force. We are not independent contractors or consultants able to individually control our own terms and conditions of employment. And the most important condition of employment is the right to remain employed. Remain in the profession we chose. Ms. Weingarten does not want to be seen as the protector of teachers' job rights: The press and the public would label her a "protector of incompetents." But the teachers who are being forced out of their jobs- the ATRs, the whistle-blowers, the questioners, the teachers who dared to exercise their transfer rights, and the teachers who make too much money - are not incompetents. These teachers are the scapegoats being used to further Bloomberg, Klein, and yes, Randi Weingarten's political ambitions.

Weingarten has proven she does not have the stomach to advocate for teachers' rights to their jobs. She has colluded in turning NYC teachers into at-will employees. Her defense for doing so- "The UFT was not strong enough to fight."

Questions TAGNYC has for Randi Weingarten:

1. Why did you not educate your membership about the implications of the givebacks in the 2005 contract? You and your lawyers knew the possible if not probable consequences. You can't blame the membership for running to take the money since you did not do your job in educating the membership. Labor leaders don't invoke the adage "Buyer beware" when the `buyer' is the membership.

2. Will you admit that you feared for the careers of the more senior teachers in the wake of the 2005 contract and the empowerment of principals? Will you admit that you communicated this fear to your district reps? You hoped Bloomberg-Klein would go easy on the senior teachers. You lost and we lost. Labor leaders should never "depend upon the kindness of strangers."

3. Why did you not rally the members to make a stand against Bloomberg-Klein? 80,000 plus teachers in your corner and you did nothing to get them on the street (strikes weren't necessary- why not mass protests during rush hours, etc)? Oh, right, you were and are afraid of antagonizing the public. Too cautious to be a labor leader.

4. Why do you tell your members "Wait until 2009?" You see 2009 as a time when friends of `labor' come back into office. How courageous! Who can't `lead' when times are good and ears are sympathetic. You failed to lead in tough times. Too many of NYC teachers- the competent teachers- have, and are suffering the devastating consequences of your failed leadership in the run-up to 2009. Will many of these teachers be employed in 2009?

5. Why do you hide behind the 3020a process? Rather than using the law as the pretext for not intervening, why are you not railing against the farce of the 3020a process?

6. Why don't you state publicly what is said privately by district reps, chapter chair people, and OSI: Frivolous charges of incompetence, verbal, corporal, and sexual abuse are being used by principals to remove competent teachers from their schools?

7. Why have you not led your members in vocal, body-on-the line protests against the absurdity of turning competent teachers into ATRs? Why won't you admit loudly and publicly that the ATR paradigm is the road to unemployment for high salaried, competent teachers?

8. Why have you not led your members in vocal, body-on-the-line protests against the willful destruction of competent teachers' careers by incompetent, insecure, and unethical principals?

9. Who is defending your teachers in the schools? Do you know that most of your chapter chair people and district reps have abdicated the duty to advocate? Do you know of the despair being felt by teachers who know they don't have a union willing or able to defend them within the schools?

10. How do you reconcile your claim to be an advocate for the students when their teachers- new hires and senior teachers- are stampeding out of the NYC school system?

11. On a NY1 news show last week, in criticism of the budget cuts, you chastised Klein and advised him to "Show some leadership in tough times." Ms. Weingarten, how have you shown leadership in protecting your competent teachers during the tough Bloomberg-Klein times?


Teachers are urged to email Ms Weingarten with any of these or other questions. IT IS PAST TIME FOR HER RESPONSE. Not an opt ed piece but a question and answer format where Ms. Weingarten does not control the floor, or the questions asked, or the time allotted to each response.
rweingarten@uft.org

Race on the Table – Globally and Locally

Excerpt of my column that appeared in The Wave (www.rockawave.com) on April 4, 2008.

Barack Obama’s speech on race has opened up a long-needed area of discussion, not only on the national level, but out here in Rockaway. Howard Schwach’s editorial on March 28 on the Democratic primary being about race and gender touched a chord. Sure, 50 percent of white voters voted for Clinton and an even higher percentage of black voters are for Obama. We should also say that in Italian areas and Jewish areas, candidates of those persuasions also garner votes based on how people identify with them. So, yes, all political campaigns are based to some extent on race, gender and ethnics.

[Wave Editor] Howard Schwach’s presentation of how Geraldine Ferraro was forced to resign for “telling a political truth” as a comparison of Obama’s relationship to his pastor a bit simplistic. I detected something petulant in Ferrara’s position along the lines of “look at all the advantages blacks have.” Obama did address white backlash over these issues in his speech. Sometimes I don’t get it. Obama is half white and half black and somehow the white half disappears when people talk about him.

PS 106 and Race
I bring race up in a column focused on schools because of PS 106 PA President Joyce Bunch’s It’s My Turn column in last week’s Wave in which she castigated PS 106 teacher Miriam Baum (unfairly, I believe) for her recent column on the schools in which she expressed the extent of teacher satisfaction with Principal Sills. Rather than get into the details of whether UFT President did or do not call Sills a bitch at a UFT meeting (she probably did – but she’s called me much worse and recently called a high school principal in Manhattan an A-hole.) Or the so-called “slanderous” comments about Sills forging a teacher’s signature on a faked observation – which I heard about literally the day it happened and have discovered has happened in more schools than we want to imagine, especially with Leadership Academy principals, which leads us to think about exactly what kids of training they are being given.) Joyce Bunch is basically defending Sills, and that’s her right.

Of more interest to me was points of anger she expressed at racial attitudes people may have towards kids and their parents in black communities. This touched a real nerve, given the debates going on about race and how that might affect the education process or the relationships between what is often white teachers and poor people in a black community. The idea has been raised by some that black kids would be better served by black teachers. But some people in the black community have also talked about the attitudes of middle class black teachers being much closer to those of white teachers when it comes to poor kids. Results in communities with a majority of black teachers like Washington DC (overwhelmingly,) Chicago and Bed-Stuy have not been any better.

Bunch points out that the community around PS 106 is not homogeneous, stating that she is an attorney and other parents are professionals. She says, “If someone receives a welfare check, so what?” As a white, Jewish young man who entered teaching in 1967 with a whole mess of preconceptions and received a wonderful education by the children and their parents, most of whom were on welfare, I agree wholeheartedly. And I continue to learn, working with current and former teachers of various races to try to reform the system in a way beyond the current corporate, market based driven schools based on a ridiculous competitive model that unfortunately people like Joyce Bunch and Principal Sills seem to have signed onto.

When I mentioned Bunch’s article to a young activist friend of the same mixed race as Obama, she said, “You cannot write about race and schools without reading Lisa Delpit’s “Other People’s Children” which I immediately bought and will follow up with in the future.
Bunch closes her article with an invitation for me to sit down with the PS 106 PTA to create a dialogue and I would be happy to do so. (My email is at the end of this article.) But I want to get one more thing clear…

Bees in my bonnet
I put 35 years in the system as a teacher/activist/reformer in a Hispanic/Black community in which I stood with local activists against an ethnic/white dominated school board, so I have some sensitivity to the issues Bunch raises. I’m proud to have been a teacher and the overwhelming majority of my colleagues were decent, well-meaning and competent. Thus column is aimed at teachers. When Bunch says I have a bee in my bonnet about Sills that is partially due to some of the things teachers (who I respect enormously) tell me. But it also goes to the one personal contact I had with her during the massive battle over the ratification of 2005 contract that took place between the UFT leadership and groups opposed to the contract.

With the UFT doing everything it could to keep the opposition out of the schools, we went around the city with leaflets to put in teacher mail boxes to provide them with both sides of the issue. I went to a hundred schools and in just about every one I was given the courtesy of being allowed to reach out to teachers. And when a principal felt uncomfortable, they were unfailing polite (for instance the principal of PS 114 asked to look over the leaflet and then said “OK.”) Some said they would check and asked me to come back. But not Sills, who was incredibly nasty and abusive over my request, refused to listen to even a 10 second explanation and ordered me off the premises immediately. (The person who was told to escort me out was horrified and said, “Don’t worry, that’s’ the way she treats people.”) When you have contact with so many people over so many years and you meet the rarity of someone treating me like Sills did, you get an inking that something is not right. But maybe she was just having a bad day. I look forward to the dialogue with Joyce Bunch and her colleagues if they are still interested.

Ding Dong at Bayard Rustin Ed Complex

Principal John Angelet of the Bayard Rustin Educational Complex, a man publicly called an a-hole by Randi Weingarten, has resigned and will be leaving this June. Word is the UFT was on the case for a logn time but whether their pressure made a difference is not clear. Angelet was protected through thick and thin by Tweed. They will send a teacher to the rubber room for yelling at a principal but a principal can say and do anything and get away with it. Some words from teachers in the trenches:

John Angelet has inflicted harm upon excellent Teachers, Counselors, and other UFT members for almost 4 years now as Principal. He has destroyed careers, lives and caused an excessive amount of stress for all who work for him. The morale at this school is non-existent. UFT members have resorted to a "survival" mentality even if it means hurting another UFT member. John Angelet has destroyed this school, yet we still have not received our report card grade and despite numberous acts of violence committed in and outside of school, rumours of grade-changing and Regents scrubbing and an abysmal attendance record for all students, he continues to be Principal, he continues to go after those he wants to exact his irrational rage upon and he will not stop until that person is robbed of their livelihood. I have been going through this for three years and it has got to stop. I know Principals that have been removed for less, yet John Angelet is left to terrorize his staff. The events at this school are being widely publicized, the most recent being a condemning, but accurate, article in Chelsea Now.

Mr. Angelet continues to retain his job while others are powerless to save their own. We have an Assistant Principal of Guidance, Jacqueline Serna, who left her previous school, Urban Peace Academy, under allegations of misconduct.... Still she is allowed to observe and U rate Counselors who work very, very hard and have given years to this system. Urban Peace Academy is another casualty of the BloomKlein regime, yet the very people that caused its demise are simply placed in other schools instead of the rubber room, where John Angelet is assigning people at an alarming rate. The UFT has to respond to this and demand why this incompetent, possibly emotionally disturbed individual is being allowed to run this school.

John Angelet must be removed before June and he SHOULD NOT be allowed to rate anyone considering he is himself incompetent. I have never met a more vindicative, cruel, sadistic individual in my entire life.

http://programthistales.blogspot.com/
http://getupstandupforurrights.blogspot.com/

AERAPLANING - Don' Need No Stinkin' Research

...to tell me lower class sizes benefit kids.

On Tuesday, after De-Kleining Joel Klein, I headed over to the Sheraton with Sol Stern to pick up a press pass (I left out in that post that Sol was mad at me for repeating something he said in an email) for AERA (American Education Research Association) which supposedly has 16,000 people attending. I was thinking of hanging around for Diane Ravitch's presentation later that afternoon, but headed for a movie and then home to do get in some late-afternoon gardening. Reading Eduwonkette's report on Diane's presentation made me sorry I didn't stay. I wonder if 'Wonkette was wearing her mask? (How about an Eduwonkette scavenger hunt?)

Thursday, I bit the bullet and headed for AERA for the entire day, carrying the 500 page AERA guide, Kahlenberg's "Tough Liberal" and Podair's book on the '68 strike to entertain myself between workshops. As a quasi educator/blogger/reporter/ed commentator I was interested in this mouthful: Disseminating Education Research Through Electronic Media: Advice from E-Journalists.

The participants were: ed commentators and bloggers Alexander Russo (This Week in Education), Andrew Rotherham (the Ed Sector and Eduwonk), the more traditional educational journalist, Jennifer Medina from the NY Times, and Richard Colvin of the Hechinger Institute on Education and the Media at Teachers College, Columbia University.

Eduwonkette asked me to cover this for her and I sent stuff over for her AERA quotes of the day. There wasn't a food fight between Rotherham and Russo – that will go on at their blogs. Is the day coming when you can throw a pie in someone's face through the computer screen?

I was interested in raising some issues related to the coverage of events in NYC, especially by the NY Times which is viewed by so many as biased for BloomKlein but wasn't sure how to raise it. I've actually seen a slightly more nuanced tone in Medina's reporting but there's so much the Times leaves uncovered. I was surprised when she said there were 11 education reporters at the Times.

You can read about the serious aspects of the session in terms of researchers and journalists (the E and traditional kind) at their blogs.
Russo reports on the session here.
Rotherham's account is here.
Moderator Paul Allen Baker's report here.

I wanted to get a few points in regarding the absence of the classroom teacher voice and how class size is addressed in terms of research.

So I made the statement about not needing stinkin' research in the context of the argument the anti-class size reduction people make that we can't lower class size until we have a quality teacher available and that resources would be better spent in recruiting and training better teachers. That reporters repeat that all the time. Less kids = lift all teachers quality is so obvious.

I said, how come the same questions are not raised about the medical field: we don't refuse to put more doctors and nurses in hospitals because some of them will not be high quality. (Did you know how many practicing doctors have not passed their certification boards?) The legal field – do we ban the guys who can't run fast enough to catch up to the ambulance? The financial field?Hoo , ha! Judges? Politicians? The ones who have the most number of affairs are the lowest quality. Or the highest. Or better yet, take NYC education journalists. Do you see a difference in quality? If you can't keep up with Elizabeth Green, you can't write a story.

Of course this comparison was totally ignored. This is about education, not the rest of the world.

How come the focus on teacher quality to the exclusion of other areas of society. Actually, I got a lot of the answers at Lois Weiner's session on Saturday about the world-wide neo-liberal attack on teachers and their unions (see Lois at the April 15 Teachers Unite forum) but will post on that soon.

What ed journalist do is narrow-casting. Like there was a UFT/coalition rally to restore budget cuts while down the street the fed was coming up with $200 billion and no one made the ironic connection.

Or report that class size research is inconclusive and ignore the fact that parents spend #30,000 for private school and parents in rich areas like Scarsdale pay so much for small class sizes.

I got a rather heated response from Richard Colvin (did I detect a note of hostility when I ran into him in the press room later?), who said just because people in Scarsdale drive a Mercedes, it doesn't mean we all have to when cheaper alternatives are available - that the best uses of resources in resource-starved urban schools may not be to reduce class size. He didn't quite say that the better use was to recruit quality teachers, but he may have been thinking it.

I didn't get a chance to say it but I guess urban kids never get to ride in the Mercedes unless they do the drug thing. What I would have said: How about giving kids in a few places the Mercedes just to see if it works. Like, instead of closing down one high school and loading it up with multiple small schools (sure, that's certainly more cost effective), try doubling the staff for a few years and see what impact that had. Why don't class size researchers suggest that as a test? Or ed reporters? Like I said, narrow casting.

Rotherham pointed to the USA Today article on class size on Monday which made an interesting observation:

Small classes work for children, but that's less because of how teachers teach than because of what students feel they can do: Get more face time with their teacher, for instance, or work in small groups with classmates... researchers closely watched students' behaviors in 10-second intervals throughout class periods and found that in smaller classes in both elementary and high school, students stayed more focused and misbehaved less. They also had more direct interactions with teachers and worked more in small groups rather than by themselves.

Duhhh! That's the point. Reducing class size from, say 30 to 20 may not lead to drastic change in teaching styles (again, what exactly are they doing in the private schools and the rich suburban districts with their lower class size - it would have been interesting if reporters and researchers reported on that) but why is that the crucial thing at this point. The USA article stated, "teachers didn't necessarily take advantage of the smaller classes, often teaching as if in front of a larger group." Of course idiot anti-teacher propagandists who claim to be teachers turn that statement into this: "The solution is not to reduce class size and thus have to hire more bad teachers, but to keep classes big, within reason, and to focus more on hiring and training good teachers."

Typical sophistry from the right wing - turning "teachers who still teach to large groups" into "bad" teachers. Like if it were a given that class sizes would be under 20, teachers would be trained to work in that environment instead of training to manage a herd.

The other point I made was how the voices of classroom teachers, the actual people who have to implement all this crap, never seem to be heard in these debates. I could almost hear a collective regurgitation at the mention of "classroom teachers." Rotherham's comment was that his survey of 1000 teachers show they are not much aware of policy issues. So what? Guess he isn't reading some of amazing NYC Teacher blogs out there.

Medina said something about 6 people talking to each other. Maybe so, but each of these 6 people work in a school and talk to people at the job. So for each blogger and their commenters, there is a multiplier effect.

But most egregiously, she said she'd love to talk to teachers but they don't want to talk to the press. Hmmm! Maybe not about an expose at their school, but about policy? I know so many people who won't keep their mouths shut. If there are any teachers out there who have gotten a request from an ed reporter at the NY Times for an opinion on DOE policy, please let me know.

I bet some in this crowd, as much of society, gag at the idea of hearing teacher voices. Read Frank McCourt's wonderful Teacher Man for a view of how low down society looks at teachers. He spent 30 years in the classroom but it took writing a best seller to be heard.

At least he taught high school. When I told the crowd I taught elementary school, you might as well have read the bubbles over their heads saying, "Those that can do, those that can't teach, especially elementary school."