Town Hall Meetings Urge NY State Legislature to Pull the Plug

August, 2015

NYC

Raucous town hall meetings have been springing up in all boroughs of New York City urging NY State legislators who supported the extension of mayoral control six years ago in 2009 to finally pull the plug.

Angry citizens have gathered to attack local politicians, most of whom have abandoned the sham and have openly been on the payroll of 4th term mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has announced he intends to serve as mayor for life after cancelling all future elections. The mayor has designated his daughter Georgina as the next mayor to succeed him.

Copy cat town halls have also followed President Obama and his 5th education secretary, Sarah Palin, to also pull the plug on their support for mayoral control, charter schools, merit pay and all the other market based education deform gimmicks that have proven to be such a failure.

Obama's was constantly reminded how his now long forgotten first education secretary, Arne Duncan, (currently commissioner of a minor league basketball association formerly run by disgraced NY Knicks general manager Isiah Thomas) forced states to adopt the deform agenda or have the education stimulus package withheld.

With all states succumbing, the result was that every child in the nation has become proficient in all skills based on the results of 10 True False questions, where either answer was correct. The entire system came crashing down when it was discovered that 92% of the children in America were found to be pulling doors when in fact the sign said "push."

Duncan, in a candid interview, admitted all that was accomplished was that his package was stimulated by Palin.

Related:
Arne Duncan has become a national embarrassment, Part II

Jean Shepherd - On NPR -Hearing Voices

Talk about the Woodstock nostalgia craze going on this weekend (later, see my personal story - no, I was not there but in Europe that summer).

My friends and I were fierce Shepherd fans as teens.
Even if you have no idea who he is (best known as author of "A Christmas Story" story) check it out.

The narrator, Harry Shearer, just told the story of Shepherd holding a milling where he tells listeners to go to an empty parking lot late at night to just mill about and crowds showed up (he didn't). Certainly confused the cops when they asked what was going on and were told, "We're just milling"). Maybe we should do Tweedings.

And remember that scene from the movie Network when Peter Finch yells out the window, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore"? Must have come from stuff Shepherd did. He used to have listeners put their radios on their window sills facing out and he would should things like "You filthy pragmatist."

I remember one great story of a lightning storm at Yankee stadium and Shepherd's description of the absolute fear of Phil Rizzuto. Priceless stuff.

If you miss it check the archives at http://hearingvoices.com/news/2009/08/hv067-jean-shepherd-1/

Or you might want to capture this show for future listening, preferably in bed late at night with earphones.

More on Shepherd at http://www.ep.tc/realist/42/

There's a lot of gnashing of teeth over the details of mayoral control bills - Updated

UPDATED Aug. 17, 1AM:

The GEM blog has some details: Disparate bills signed into law?

I gave up the ghost on trying to stop mayoral control this round - about 5 years ago. It was clear as Ed Notes has reported since 2001 that the UFT supports mayoral control. Thus, the reality of a serious attempt on the part of politicians to kill it would get little traction without UFT support. As we always say, the gorilla in the room is the enabler of so much that emanates from handing control over to a politician - narrow education, manipulated stats, merit pay, using data reports to measure teacher effectiveness, etc.

The problem as I see it has been the reliance on working with politicians to tweak this or tweak that. Until it was way too late I heard very few politicians with oomph oppose mayoral control. All we heard was checks and balances.

There have been too many forces arrayed in favor, from Obama on down.

It will take half a generation of the failure of this model before people wake up, though we started seeing signs recently

At the very end of the process I actually heard Robert Jackson who supported mayoral control with tweaks, thank Charles and Inez Barron at a City Hall press conference on July 31 for showing him the light - I have video of that awkward Jackson/Barron hug.

When I spoke to an aide to Harlem State Senator Bill Perkins at the first PS 123 rally on July 7 I called Perkins a tweaker. He agreed and asked, "What is the alternative?" I said, "go back to the old system and tweak that. At least that will give people some more involvement and remove absolute power from the hands of one person." He replied that maybe it was time to think about that. For the past month Perkins had led the way. He will be joined by others as time goes by.
(Video of that rally here.)

The 14 years of Chicago failure are beginning to seep into consciousness and I read an article (I can't remember which) that indicates there is much more debate going on over the issue in other cities and towns contemplating the mayoral control model. Some are even considering reversal.

I am predicting that by the end of the next 4 years of the failure of BloomKlein (or whoever takes Klein's place if he leaves - and watch them put in an "educator" who will function no differently) will change the landscape. But unless Bloomberg runs for a 4th term, with 2 years remaining for mayoral control, we will start to see people saying, "Give the next mayor a chance."

I say NO.
I don't care if the next mayor is the reincarnation of Ghandi.
NO MORE MAYORAL CONTROL.

Our job? To organize an effective alternative and a grassroots mass movement to execute it.

Rationality on Social Promotion is the Missing Ingredient

I really take issue with the fact that the writer of this piece opposes efforts to end social promotion. Social promotion is a big problem in many schools.
----anon comment on my post the other day Unsocialized Promotion

Anon missed the point. But then again this is the August doldrums and I probably wasn't too clear.

The point of that piece was that these are phony attempts to end social promotion and in fact under BloomKlein social promotion has soared through credit recovery, cheating, easy tests, drive by diplomas and all the other goodies that come with the mayoral control package which politicizes education.

The claims that somehow schools before BloomKlein were engaging in massive social promotion based on my experiences and contacts was simply not true.

As a self-contained classroom elementary school teacher during those years 1969-1985 I saw all aspects of the situation. My school only had social promotion in the graduating grade so 6th graders weren't left behind except for special situations. But in all cases, the policy was to hold them back at least once before they got to 6th grade. Sometimes they were left back twice.

Now I know there are people who say twice is not enough. How do you keep a kid who would be an 8th grader in a class of 5th graders forever if necessary? Anyone who works in a school knows that is insane.

All research as Leonie Haimson points out (The Mayor commits educational malpractice, once again) shows that holding kids over doesn't work in most cases and does more harm. So the case can be made that holding kids back at all is counterproductive. But I don't go that far and do believe some kids need more time.

The solution, given the rigid school structure we have, is to target kids behind and do what is necessary to bring them up. If they are resistant to doing any work or anything to help themselves I don't have easy answers. Sometimes leaving them back has the effect of throwing water in their faces - I had a few in the 5th grade that ended back in my class the next year and did mature in that way and the extra year made a difference.

Digression
The problem is we are locked into a graded system. From my earliest years I was against putting kids in grades as opposed to multi-graded clusters where there was a mixture of kids over a few grades and older kids could teach younger ones. Naturally, a class of this nature can be unteachable. So the 2nd part of my progressive reform movement (contrary to critics, we have never been status quoers) would be to put around 100 multi-graded kids in a cluster with about 6 teachers who would stay with them for 3 years. More another time.
End Digression

The BloomKlein extension of decision making on whether kids should be left back in the 4th and 6th grades moves that choice away from the school level. I've always been for the teacher – at least those with some experience (I know, I know, they barely exist).

I used to fight my own principal over her taking the basic decision making out of the hands of the teachers and making a blanket school policy for all that override the judgements of the teachers who worked most closely with the kids. Before she took over, we used to meet with out AP and be able to fight for the kids we felt holding over would not help. She took over in 1978 and instituted many of the test prep stuff we are seeing today and even went so far as to dictate what materials we could use in our classrooms.

I look at that as the beginning of the end for my sense of control over my classroom and it eventually led to my no longer wanting to teach self-contained classes, the true grunt work of teaching. Thus, in many ways me real teaching career ended in 1985, after which I became a cluster teacher. I never regained that passion or sense of involvement I had for the 16 self-contained classes I taught. (That experience is the reason Ed Notes was first out of the box in the UFT in 1996 talking about the evils of high stakes testing.)

The point is that the decision should be made at the teacher/school level, not by a dumb politically motivated policy by the mayor.

Stringer Puts Patrick Sullivan Back at PEP – Ed Notes Had the Video of Stringer Offer to Sullivan a Month Ago

Anna Phillips at Gotham has a report on Patrick Sullivan's appointment to the Panel for Educational Policy by Scott Stringer. Back from the recent past, citywide panel gets first member

The first PEP meeting should be the 3rd Monday of Sept at Tweed. Plan to be there to welcome Patrick back as Klein has put his phony social promotion policy as the main item on the agenda.

We pretty much knew that from Ed Notes' interview with Stringer at PS 123 on July 10 when I asked him if he was going to appoint Sullivan and he said he would if Patrick wanted it.

Stringer emerges from PS 123 as GEMers shout, "Paint the whole school" after watching Eva Moskowitz people bring large buckets of paint into the school to paint her section.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yysHjiSOmgM


Though Stringer is to be commended for his action, that does not mean we don't keep his feet to the fire on the PS 123 situation and charter schools in general.

When the DOE ruled in HSA's favor in its invasion of PS 123 on July 9, two days after we rallied there after teachers physically prevented HSA movers from removing their stuff, we held a rally up there on the morning of July 10. Tony Avella and Scott Stringer came by.

Here is my post at that time.

UPDATE: Scott Stringer Video at PS 123 After Walk-Through and Answers Questions from GEMers

In the video Stringer emerges from PS 123 after his walk through om July 10, 2009. After a speech, members of GEM question him about the influx of charters. He tries to duck and keep it to the local situation.

Here is JW's report at the GEM blog:

GEM people asked all the right questions and made all the right points.

Stringer: "We're on the case."

Stringer: "We're going to work."

But, they haven't been on the case, and they're only going to get on it if it becomes politically expedient.

You could tell there's a long way to go after Norm Scott asked:

"If Bloomberg and Klein run the schools for 7 years, they're in charge of every school, how do they manage to push the idea of a charter school, which basically absolves them of the responsibility.

In other words, isn't that an admission of their failure if they say that public schools are failing and they need charter schools. Isn't there a contradiction in that very concept?"

Stringer dodged it, claiming his purpose that morning was to see what's going on at 123 and try to figure out a solution.

Stringer: "Today's not about THAT fight."

Of course it isn't — to him. Because he and his colleagues on the City Council have watched privatization for seven years, first with the Gates money and now with the charters. The flood of no-bid contracts, non-educator corporate ideology, and inflated PR teams are not new, and it's obvious these people have bought into the process. In fact, it's in their interest to let their constituents, not to mention the entire nation, believe that the NYC school system is a model of "accountability" and "transparency," with scores going "up" and graduation rates "on the rise."


The fight that Stringer sidelined at Scott's question is the fight, no two ways about it. And it's going to have to get much louder before elected officials like Stringer get down with making quality facilities equal for all public school kids.

— JW

Mid-Summer Course Correction

School Scope column

By Norm Scott

From The Wave, Friday, August 14, 2009: www.rockawave.com

There have been enough things going on in the education world this summer to fill multiple pages. I’ll spare you the pain. The lazy days of August are not conducive to writers and readers, so I’ll keep this real short and refer those wanting details to my education notes online blog.

The battle for mayoral control, though it looks like it is over, is still not official and the political complexities would take an entire edition of this paper. The law sunset at the end of June and technically we were, and still are until the renewal is finalized, back to the old days. Except that the borough presidents gave BloomKlein even more power than they had before, with our own Helen Marshall shamelessly appointing deputy mayor Dennis Walcott as her representative. For that she should be impeached.

I’ve been working with the Grassroots Education Movement, which came into being this past spring as a group working to fight for public education in the face of the privatization onslaught. Many of our activities have been focused in Harlem with PS 123 as the epicenter. The school shares space with former city councilwoman Eva Moskowitz’ Harlem Success Academy charter school. Moskowitz, who took down a cool $370 grand for managing her four charter schools, is a privateer supreme and just a tad aggressive in demanding lebensraum. She is not exactly a good neighbor when she occupies public schools, often using blitzkrieg tactics to get what she wants.

Soon after school ended, she sent movers into PS 123 teachers’ rooms to remove their stuff. They had been promised their things would not be disturbed. So when summer school teachers saw their materials dumped into hallways, they physically barred the movers and called the DOE and UFT to complain. Eva was forced to stop. A rally was called at the school on July 7 and GEM went up there to support them. ACORN also had a presence, but they are in the uncomfortable position of having a close relationship with the UFT, which itself has two charter schools that invade space in public schools. Parent leaders from other Harlem schools dealing with the charter invasion were also there and a loose coalition of forces started to come together.

A few days later we received a call from one of the PTA presidents in another Harlem school being invaded by Evil, er Eva, that the DOE had ruled in favor of Moskowitz at PS 123 (there is so much money and politics floating around her operation, she almost always gets what she wants). That the DOE would support her was never in doubt, as the Tweedles working for BloomKlein want a perfect storm of “running” a school system of all charter and no public schools. Call it “accountability lite.” So the DOE cooperates in the undermining of public schools and the promotion of charters.

As a result of the call, a bunch of GEMers went back to PS 123 a few days later. Mayoral candidate Tony Avella was there to lend his support and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer took a tour of the building to see the separate and unequal conditions of the two schools in the same building. He emerged, seemingly shocked. But then again he is a politician. They all take Acting 101.

Well, the upshot was a number of rallies at schools in Harlem and at Tweed and the formation of alliances to fight mayoral control, with some politicians coming on board. The most vigorous have been Brooklyn City Councilman Charles Barron and his wife, State Assemblywoman Inez Barron, and Harlem State Senator Bill Perkins, who has been holding weekly meetings in his office with people interested in forming a coalition. Even if mayoral control continues for the next six years, as expected, Bloomberg’s dictatorial arrogance will continue to mess up the schools to such an extent, opposition over is bound to grow. As I wrote on my blog: “the fight to put a stake through the heart of mayoral control starts NOW.”

Opposition is also growing nationally and I went to Los Angeles as part of a NYC contingent to meet with teacher activists from four other cities. I got to hang out with a bunch of young Chicago teachers in a new teacher union group called the Caucus of Rank and File Educators (CORE) a group similar to GEM and the Independent Community of Educators, the caucus I work with here in NYC.

We are forming a coalition to oppose the so-called education reformers, who I have termed “deformers.” Too bad President Obama and his Education Secretary Arne Duncan are amongst them. Arne’s stewardship of the Chicago school system, which has been under mayoral control for almost 15 years, is undergoing increasing (negative) scrutiny.

That’s it until school starts. But I keep blogging at http://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/

Unsocialized Promotion

Lots of reporting going on today over the politically tinged BloomKlein announcement they were going to end socialized promotion in 4th and 6th grades. Who knew Bloomberg was a socialist?

Never mind.

NYC Educator lays it on in his inimical way
Bloomberg Ends Social Promotion, Makes Tests So Easy Your Dog Can Pass Them

Followed by Leonie Haimson with the research to back up what she is saying.
The Mayor commits educational malpractice, once again

Maura Walz at Gotham Schools calls it "Shooting Blind."
Social promotion’s effect in New York City still largely unknown

Mulgrew over at the UFT basically approves ("Adding the fourth and sixth grades to the city's promotion policy is clearly a step in the right direction.") with the usual whine that he hopes the kids who are left back get the help they need - wink, wink.

Oh, we know what help that means.

Credit recovery, easy tests, phony stats, mirror fogging 101.

Kids managing to not get promoted, will have their families given a one way ticket to anywhere but here by Bloomie.


Out Takes
ICE is setting up a special blog focused on the upcoming UFT elections in January 2010. ICE will be working with TJC again and is also working to incorporate people from other non-caucus activist groups. Elements of the platform should be released soon.

Needed: people to distribute materials to people in their schools, both hard copy and through email and to be an advocate for the slate. Also people to run for AFT/NYSUT delegate (800 positions available). Don't worry about winning any of these as Unity has stacked the deck to make sure they dominate the AFT and NYSUT with their "winner take all" rules. Email iceuft@gmail.com if interested.

Warning: If there was a vigorous opposition to Unity Caucus, Unity Caucus would not have been able to force so many bad policies down the throats of the rank and file. The reality of the current UFT undemocratic structure, precludes winning many positions. This is about growing an opposition - building the infrastructure so that the UFT/Unity leadership will be dragged into making the democratic changes needed. The battleground starts in your own schools.

What's wrong with charter schools?

This recent comment at Gotham Schools by Ceolaf is worth repeating in a main line post. And yes, Ceolaf, we want more, especially on the tracking issue raised. I've been thinking along those lines too. We used to track kids by reading scores and that policy changed - I hear. Though the talented and gifted programs seem to get around some of that. We used to have 600 schools to segregate kids who were troubled. Ceolaf makes the great point that charters can pick off the top performing and least troubled kids – I heard stories in LA, especially from Candi in DC, about how charters make sure NOT to have a special ed teacher on board so they can steer parents away. Thus we are heading towards a dual school system where the public schools, often in the same building as a charter, ultimately end up with the tougher kids to work with. If that is what our leaders intend then say it instead of playing the stealth game.


There is a new comment on the post "What is it about Eva Moskowitz that attracts so many enemies?"
http://gothamschools.org/2009/02/27/what-is-it-about-eva-moskowitz-that-attracts-so-many-enemies/

Author: ceolaf

What's wrong with charter schools?

Well, I would say that the first problem is that there are a whole bunch of people who believe that charters are actually answer to systemic improvement of our schools, and that clearly is not the case. Charterness, in and of itself, does not have an impact on pedagogy, instruction or the kinds of interactions and issue that make up a child's education. Charterness is a governance issue, not an instructional or staffing issue. Therefore, this charter issue, and those who perpetuate it, such so much reform attention and energy that we are not investigating or furthering the kinds of reforms that have even a theory of action for how they will improve children's educational experiences.

The second problem is really a set of problems. There have a been a lot of theories for why/how charter schools will improve the larger educational landscape (e.g. little lab schools with knowledge transfer, competition, etc.) Over and over again, research shows that these theories do not hold true on the ground, and yet charter proponents continue to clamor for more charter schools-- even though the original charter laws in most states had caps until they proved their efficacy. They haven't, and there are not even any theories of action left that have not been been disproved. (Or, if there are, I have not seen them.) Combine this with the first issue, and we lose potential gains.

More directly, we know the importance of home and peer effects on students. That is, supportive home environments (e.g. a quiet time and place where kids can do homework, parents who model bringing work home, parents who value education, etc.) help to create better student outcomes. We know that peer pressure impacts academic attitudes and work ethics. So, if charter schools attract a disproportionate share of kids with really support home environments, other kids will be hurt by the absence of those kids from their schools and classrooms. Of course, this is an old issue that applies to the tracking debates and even the elite exam schools. We've agreed in education that tracking is bad, even if not a tiny number of elite exam schools. But charter schools certainly make that a much bigger/more common issue.

Fourth, and specifically to NYC, Bloomberg and Klein appear to favor charter schools in ways that others have already documented quite well. They have turned much of it into a zero-sum game. For example, expansion of charter schools coming at the expense of space in non-charter public schools. But I'll leave that to others to explore.

More systemically, I really believe that GOP/conservative support for charter schools is very much about undermining teacher union membership. (Let me know if you need to be convinced that this is true.) This is bad for the wider educational system because teacher unions are by far the most effective political players in support of maintaining or increasing funding for education
-- locally, state-wide and nationally. They have more knowledge and experience with education, how schools and classrooms work and what children need than others who try to shape our educational legislation. Most others argue, in effect, for lower educational spending, a weakening of supports and reductions in professionalism.

Then there are some more diffuse issues. There are a lot of fools out there who think that because they have some memories of what schooling is -- and from a student's perspective, of course -- that they are qualified to made demands about educational policy. They insist on foolish ideas that clearly demonstrate that they don't know jack about schools, classrooms or those who work in them. Their success with getting charter schools and charter schools misleading faux superiority to non-charter public schools (again, let me know if you want me to
explain what I am talking about), they are encouraged to make further dumb demands of the rest of the educational establishment. (e.g. abolish requirements for substantive training for aspiring teachers, base teacher compensation of tests that have never been shown to reflect the quality of instruction).

You want more? [YES- MORE ON THE TRACKING ISSUE]

See all comments on this post here:
http://gothamschools.org/2009/02/27/what-is-it-about-eva-moskowitz-that-attracts-so-many-enemies/#comments

Related:
NYC Educator:
Charter School Deems Kid Too Dangerous to Be Around Students or Faculty, Sends Him to Public School

Come to an Ed Notes Teabag Party and Town Hall Meeting

I've had it with all that socialist government interference. Why I was just driving and had to stop at a traffic light. And a STOP sign. There were speed limits. And worst of all, I was not able to drive on the other side of the road like those people with cute accents in England and Australia do. And Japan- the English accent there is not that cute.

We need more of this

How dare they keep us from driving wherever we want!
It's all because of Obama, that socialist.

Make a stand now.

Ed Notes is organizing town hall meetings nationwide to protest restrictive traffic laws.

Join us in ending tyranny.

At Schools Matter: Commentary on: A teacher explains why she is leaving

Teacher retention, or lack thereof, is the topic of the day.

This post by teacherken, "A teacher explains why she is leaving," is so sensible and goes so deep.

But Schools Matter is a blog that always goes deep.* Read about Sarah Fine, a Teach for America recruit in a charter school in Washington DC, who leaves the classroom after 4 years. Now of course if she continues writing about teaching, TFA will count her as one of the ones who remained connected to education in some manner without addressing the reasons she left.

Actually, when Fine talks about lack of respect for classroom teachers, there is something inherent in TFAs' emphasis on their people migrating out of the classroom and into leadership positions. You know, at TFA it's all about making policy, not actually teaching kids.

After reading Fine's op ed in the Washington Post and teacherken's analysis, come back here.


So many good points were touched on. But I think a missing ingredient for many frustrated teachers is being part of an external political force for change to counter their isolation. The union could have been that force but is clearly not. And the UFT, other than in its earliest infancy, never has been since I started teaching, though it mouthed off like it was.

I was lucky when in 1970 I met a group of like-minded teachers and we banded together to publish our views and reach out to others. As progressive reform educators we became somewhat of an alternative voice in the UFT to Shanker. We met just about every week for 10 years. We went back to school the next day with renewed rigor. We gained political perspective so that every day we went in to school with a better understanding of the forces that were affecting our kids and our jobs. We were probably better teachers for it because we didn't tend to blame our kids or their parents or ourselves.

Did we accomplish the reform we sought? Not at all. But we kept each other sane and in the system, myself for 35 years working in one of the more depressed areas of Brooklyn.

But we taught each other to be equipped to fight our administrations more effectively and also to fight our own union, which unfortunately, often teamed up with admins against political activists. (There is nothing to toughen you up like having your district UFT rep and your district superintendent visit your assistant principal together and suggest he find ways to give you a U rating).

I put a piece in the side panel from Chicago CORE's co-chairperson Jackson Potter that relates to this issue. CORE reminds me of the group I was with in the 70's:

Jackson spoke about how CORE is effectively changing the culture of the Union. He spoke about how CORE came from a group of teachers who were not interested in leaving the classroom, but were interested in using our brotherhood and sisterhood within the Union to make the classroom a place where we can better serve our students. CORE wants to put a stop to the culture of “the further you get away from the classroom, the bigger the rewards.”

Go to Chicago Sarah Fine and seek out CORE. You would live to teach many more years. Or just come to NYC and hang out with GEM and ICE.

Recently, I've been meeting some young teachers with a social justice political perspective in Teachers Unite and GEM. Hopefully they will band together in ways that will keep them in the game– and in the classroom. That is part of what TU is doing with its teacher activism courses and the monthly chapter leader support groups.


*Recent posts on charters schools at Schools Matter
Governor Patrick Intervenes in Corrupt Charter Approval in Gloucester

Charter Alliance Owes $400,000 to District; Accountability, Oversight, Responsibility Lacking

The Great Healthcare Debate

I was going to write this as an addendum to another post, but since NYC Educator put up this great post today (In Which I Face Down the Grim Socialist Machine), comparing his experiences in emergency rooms in the US and the dreaded Canadian single payer system (MUST READ), I'll put my 2 cents in here.

We went into the city to meet a group of friends at the Metropolitan Museum yesterday afternoon. Someone should have sent us to an emergency room for leaving a beautiful Rockaway on a sunny afternoon, but traffic was smooth and we made it in about 40 minutes and I found a parking spot on 86th street off 5th Ave. Not bad.

We met up with our friends, did some museum stuff and then on to the main event - dinner a few blocks away - $35 restaurant week, 3 course delicious dinner.

One couple, a former teacher and a former cop, started talking about all the anti-Obama health care emails they were getting, especially from other teachers. "He has to be stopped," our friend said. "Before the government takes over our health care."

This is not some town hall meeting where people are riled by right wing agitators. These are people from Brooklyn.

My wife, who works in health care, got that look in her eye. She works with all the scuz ball thieving insurance companies and says flat out, medicare is the most efficient and easiest to work with. Thus her support for a single payer system.

The former cop has medicare and his wife will have it fairly soon. So we ask, gently, do they want to give that up? "No, of course not," they say. "Did you know that is a government program?" They didn't. Obama has screwed up big time if they don't.

Did we change their minds? I doubt it.

My take on this? Real health care reform is basically dead. Obama waffled in trying to be a centrist and satisfy all parties and he will end up with tiny changes that will do little good and keep costing a fortune. Now, in the face of the right wing town hall attacks, there are attempts to mobilize that same spirit that he had in the campaign. But I can say as an educator who watched Obama accept the corporate driven ed reform agenda hook, line and sinker - the one area he didn't have to waffle on because he had the teacher unions sucking up – the thrill is gone. I'll just move to Canada or France when I get sick.


Addendum

We got on the line that suggests paying $20. Now I get museumitis after less than an hour and I figure an hour in the museum is worth about 3 bucks. When I hand over $6 and say "two" I get that "cheap bastard" look of disgust. But she hands me two little blue pins.

We go past the security guard who glares at us. The pins look like everyone else's but I'm sure it has an invisible dye that broadcasts "THESE PEOPLE ARE CHEAP."

Well, to make a long story short, the temple of Dendur was ok. Lots of space for such a small temple. I was looking for the Nile to flood while we were standing there.

When I used to take my classes to the MET in the 70's, I think I took them out to pretty much that very spot that the part of the MET houses it when it was still an open field and kids could roll around on it. Then we were off to the great playground across the street on 85th St, where my kids got to mix with all the kids there with their nannies, while I joined them on the benches. Once in a while it felt nice to be nanny for a day. Except they had one and I had 25.

UFT Contract Questionnaire and UFT Cast of Thousands Contract Committee

The cone of silence descends on the UFT negotiating committee.

Here is a follow-up to our post on the UFT Survey on Thursday (The UFT Survey Says (Gag, Gag).....) which included an analysis by TJC and an opportunity to get a copy of Marian Swerdlow's point by point comparison titled

2006 vs. 2009: A Section-by-Section Guide to What Can We Learn from Comparing Two Questionnaires

Marian said it was ok to include some quotes. Here is a sample of this insightful analysis:

I. Negotiating Priorities
Twenty out of twenty-two of these questions are identical to the 2006 survey. Mostly, this is because we did not get any of the "priorities" we were asked about three years ago. (Examples: "an enforceable process to identify and reduce excessive workload," "less restricted use of sick days," "stronger contract language requiring supervisors to honor program preferences.") The changes are instructive. Gone is a question about "improved medical benefits." This omission, and other changes I'll describe below, make it clear to me that there is a de-emphasis on our medical benefits. My guess is that this is because we are about to make concessions on our medical benefits. Also omitted is "maintaining current pension benefits." As of June 22, that patient died.

She does this for every section. Email me for a copy at normsco@gmail.com.

ICE's Vera Pavone also did some analysis:

A couple of points to add to the discussion on the Contract Questionnaire and the Contract Committee. Maybe they were made and I missed them:

1. The contract questionnaire has been distributed to all working members including nurses. Pages 1 through 7 are to be answered by everyone, and then subsequent pages are for different job titles. The questions for every member include items on: class size; adequate equipment and supplies; the 37 ½ minutes; improved working conditions in after-school and summer activities; relief from involuntary coverages; safety and discipline; training and materials for mandated programs; money for instructional materials; hours spent outside school for calling parents, preparing lessons, grading papers. Why should nurses be weighing in on these questions?

2. The issue of class size is posed in the usual divisive manner that we have come to expect from the Unity leadership: We are asked to rate in terms of importance:

“5. lower class size as a part of the contract, but not if it takes money from salary” and

“6. lower class size as a part of the contract, even if it takes money from salary”

Why were questions on class size coupled with salary? Why not all other questions that involve costs—improved facilities, salary supplements, adequate equipment and supplies, improved working conditions in after-school and summer activities, reducing excessive workload?

Of course for almost 40 years the Unity Caucus leaders have consistently posed lower class size against salary as a way of confusing and dividing teachers from one another.

3. The only item on the 37-1/2 minutes is “address concerns regarding use of 37 ½ minutes”. What about the choice of calling for the elimination of the 37 ½ minutes?

4. “School-wide bonus programs should be expanded.” (p. 10) So the choice is between expansion and leaving as is. Shouldn’t teachers have a chance to weigh in on “School-wide bonuses should be eliminated.” Or “School-wide bonuses should not be tied to student test scores.”

4. Student Assessments and Tests (p. 11):

What about the elimination of the high-stakes aspects of tests?

Questions on the Negotiation Committee: How are people chosen to be on this committee? Of the 350 committee members how many are in Unity Caucus? Does secrecy mean that Unity Caucus members don’t discuss the issues brought up for discussion among themselves? Are we to believe that the only discussion that takes place among Unity Caucus members is in the committee room?

Good questions Vera. Ahhh, the negotiating committee and the cone of silence or gag order. I didn't cover some of the aspects of the undemocratic nature of the 350 (it might as well be 3000) negotiating committee. I got this email from someone on the committee:

Each member (secret cult) had to sign a contract that swears them to secrecy. They may have to leave work (school) and if they are requested to do so, they will be paid. Members have to promise to attend all meetings. The issue of discussing what goes on at the meetings is strictly prohibited. That part was in the contract several times.

I'll do more on this farce in the future but here is another interesting email I received:

I have a newbie teacher friend. Very, very new to the UFT and not aware of half the things we have struggled with forever. Anyway, was invited to participate on the UFT Negotiation Committee. What's the story on that?? How are they "choosing" random teachers to work on the new contract? Not to mention brand new people who know nothing about the contract and how members have been sold out over the years. I think this is crazy!

LIFT THE CONE OF SILENCE. CALL FOR OPEN NEGOTIATIONS THAT WILL KEEP THE MEMBERS INFORMED ALL THE WAY AND STOP BACKROOM DEALS

UPDATED: Six More Years of Mayoral Control...

The battle to kill it forever starts NOW!!!!!

Join the resistance. Contact GEM, ICE, TJC.

Next time teachers and parents must be out in force.

STARTING MONDAY AT 12 NOON AT CITY HALL:


THE COALITION FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION
....is holding a Press Conference on the steps of City Hall at NOON on Monday August 10, 2009 to expose that Mayor Bloomberg and his media friends are giving us the false impression that Mayoral Control is the current rule of law for our public schools.

As of today, New York City public schools do not have Mayoral Control.

THE COALITION FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION understands that in order for the bill passed on August 6 by the NY State Senate to become law, it must first be debated and voted on and approved by the full NY State Assembly. Then it must go to Governor Patterson for review and signature. Until that happens, we have a decentralized system as enacted in 1969, not Mayoral Control as enacted in 2002. Since the NY State Assembly will not convene until sometime in September at the earliest, we will begin the new school year under a decentralized system without Mayoral Control. All reports to the contrary are false and misleading.

Joining us on the steps of City Hall will be elected officials who are opposed to Mayoral Control as well as educators, parents and students. They will explain how this deception is being used to help promote Bloomberg’s bid for a third term as mayor and help legitimize the privatizing of our public education system.

The UFT Survey Says (Gag, Gag).....

There's been a load of discussion on the current 35 page UFT survey on blogs and listserves. Accountable Talk is urging people to send it in blank in this post How to Fill Out Your UFT Contract Survey with this proviso:

But I am going to do one thing: I am writing across the front cover, in red marker, two simple words: PROTECT US. I urge you to do the same. Tell your friends and colleagues. Email this post to them. If the powers that be at the UFT HQ see enough of these, perhaps they will get the message.

Sorry, AT. Once the UFT allowed the cow of total principal power is out of the barn, there is no way to stuff it back in. At least not without a powerful rank and file movement that is willing to go to the mattresses with BloomKlein: NO COOPERATION ON ANYTHING

Merit pay? NADA.

Agreeing to data reports? NEVER.

Bullshit paperwork? NOT ONE STUPID BINDER WILL BE HANDED IN.

Call it a Winston Churchill WWII attitude. We will fight them on the beaches, etc.

But you know the answer. The UFT is incapable of this attitude. So you might get tough rhetoric from Mulgrew, but the UFT is so far in bed with BloomKlein he could not extricate it even if he wanted to.

One of the things I enjoyed the most when ICE's Jeff Kaufman was on the Executive Board was his take no prisoners approach, which infuriated Randi and the UFT/Unity Caucus suck-ups. I'll be the first to admit that when Jeff was chosen to run I barely knew him and had no idea he would bring this former cop/lawyer attitude to the table. But watching that show for three years was worth the shlep into Manhattan every two weeks. And of course the free buffet.

Anna Philips at Gotham Schools quoted Jeff :

Jeff Kaufman, a member of ICE, an opposition party within the UFT, sat on the union’s negotiating committee in 2005, but he said he never saw the survey results.

“If they get 10% response, I would be shocked. And the response they get back, you can’t tabulate — there’s no way they sit for hours putting these numbers together and reading the comments,” he said. “We do everything else electronically. I am certain a good percentage of these end up in the garbage.”

The survey, which at a bulging 35 pages long barely fits in its return envelope, lists a series of desirable changes to the contract under headings like “Class Size,” and “Respect and Professionalism,” and asks respondents to rate the importance of each on a scale of one to five. It must be returned by August 13, and may surprise more than a few union members who could return from summer vacations to find the deadline has passed.

Absent from the survey is any mention of tenure or the Absent Teacher Reserve — the pool of over 2,000 teachers who have lost their jobs and have yet to find work within the city’s school system.

Note the way the class size question is formulated. Did it ask if teachers want it as part of contract negotiations? Does it explain that there have been no significant changes in class size since it was last negotiated - in the late 1960's. I think the Beatles were involved on those negotiations.

ICE's partners in the upcoming UFT election, Teachers for a Just Contract (TJC) has takes a different position than Accountable Talk.

Note that Marian Swerdlow has an additional analysis on the UFT attempts to make it look like they are democratic and will send it out to those who ask, but she doesn't want it published on the internet. Email me and I'll forward your request to Marian.


TEACHER FOR A JUST CONTRACT: QUESTIONING THE QUESTIONNAIRE
The "Member Contract Questionnaire" sent to all UFT members is a beginning, however belated. But if membership input stops here, this will be a bad mistake. We hope there will be more complete follow-up questionnaires designed for use in and with discussion in chapters.

First of all, the timing of this questionnaire could scarcely be worse. Received the first week of August, it must be returned by August 13. This is the heart of most UFT members' vacation times, when the greatest number will be on vacation or out of touch. Why is it done now, with such a ridiculously short "window period" for return? Furthermore, the administration of this questionnaire to individuals by mail during vacation precludes collective discussion and sharing which always optimizes group decision-making. TJC is going to try to remedy this by offering some input of our own, via email, and encouraging more from you. We hope and expect our sister opposition group, ICE, will do the same with its email and its blog.

It's great that this questionnaire provides some opportunities for the respondents in "write in" their concerns. We want to encourage TJC supporters to think about the following writing in their thoughts on these issues when answering the questionnaire:

Excessing Procedures -
In 2005, the UFT started allowing principals to decide whether they will allow a teacher into their schools. The result has been an explosion in the number of teachers relegated to "ATR." This questionnaire basically ignores this problem. We need rights, protections and guarantees for excessed teachers.

Negative Material in the file -
Also in 2005, the UFT gave up the right to grieve a letter in the file on the basis of it being"unfair and inaccurate." This has made it much easier for administrators and supervisors to harass, intimidate, U-rate, remove and fire UFT members. The questionnaire does refer to this problem, but in ways that are too vague. For example, page 2, question 9 asks the respondent to rate "strengthen the grievance procedures" as a "negotiating priority." On page 9, it asks whether the respondent "strongly supports" 10 statements including "Restore Letter in the file grievance procedures." This is not clear enough. It should at least say, "Restore the right to grieve a letter in the file if it is unfair or inaccurate."

The Grievance Procedure in general:
Another specific way the grievance procedure could be strengthened is by imposing penalties on the D.o.E. for lack of timeliness. As of now, all the penalties for timeliness are on the UFT member: if we don't grieve on time, it is too late. However, the principal or the Chancellor's office can stall forever before rendering a decision, and there's no penalty. The result is that people can wait years until they get a decision on a grievance. In the mean time, the abuse can go on and on. If a lack of a decision within a time limit meant the grievant would win, we would get timely decisions, and violations could be curbed.

The 2005 so-called "Open Market Transfer Plan"
Does it serve our needs? Should we be fighting to restore the seniority plan, or aspects of it that could put checks on principals' arbitrary powers?

Rights of accused members
Do we want better protections for members against allegations? One important example: When there is an allegation against a member, the D.o.E. carries out an investigation. However, the accused member has no corresponding right to carry out an investigation, and doesn't even have the right to know the charge while the investigation is going on. This puts our members at a tremendous disadvantage and all the evidence is one-sided. Do we want better enforcement of due process rights and other rights of reassigned (removed) members?

New professional and administrative assignments
The only question here about this is whether there are too many of the latter as compared to the former. But do we want administrative assignments at all? The old way, both union and principal had to agree to add an activity to the menu, and what the "expectations" should be, and disputes went to a union-management committee. Now the principal has final say. Do we want to go back to the old way?

Sabbaticals
There is no mention of sabbaticals. Members are often denied sabbaticals and the explanations are irrational and/or violative. The union seems powerless to protect our sabbatical rights. Repeatedly, we hear sabbaticals are an endangered species. How important is it to us to have stronger protections for sabbatical rights and to make sure sabbaticals are preserved for our newest UFT members to enjoy as they accrue seniority?

Perhaps these issues can be included in follow-up questionnaires and discussions.

Individual questionnaires, and even group discussions, are important but not enough. It's great to go into a contract struggle with demands for generous raises and no givebacks. But sometimes a choice is unavoidable between taking one giveback or another, or launching or continuing a strike. It is imperative to consult the membership at such junctures. Even when you are making gains, during negotiations unforseen choices arise over which gains the membership wants more. The importance of membership control grows as negotiations intensify. In addition to Delegate Assemblies, membership meetings on the regional, borough and even union-wide level should be introduced to implement this control.

Unfortunately, the UFT's past record in this regard leaves much to be desired. For the present contract, there was an almost identical survey in August 2006. We had slightly more time to fill it out. There was no follow-up. When the contract was settled prematurely in October 2006, it had hardly any relationship to anything in the questionnaire, as evidenced by the fact that this questionnaire is practically identical to its predecessor: There seems to be only a single instance of winning the many priorities and issues we were asked about in the questionnaire: the five-year longevity. In the light of this, we have the right to feel skeptical over how much this questionnaire will mean.

2006 vs. 2009: A Section-by-Section Guide to What Can We Learn from Comparing Two Questionnaires

How has the questionnaire changed? What does this show us about our union's trajectory? What clues can the changes give us about what lies in the future? To get a copy of Marian Swerdlow's comparative analysis of these two UFT attempts to "look democratic," reply to this email. (EMAIL ME AT NORMSCO@GMAIL.COM)

Leonie Slaps Flypaper Over Class Size

Is there not stopping this woman? Yesterday she takes down the NY Times. Today she wipes out the Fordham Institute.

Leonie Haimson reports on the NYC Ed News Listserve:

See this nasty column in Flypaper – put out by the right-wing Fordham Institute, attacking my Huffington Post column on Frank McCourt posted here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leonie-haimson/what-frank-mccourt-could_b_241331.html

Check it out at http://www.edexcellence.net/flypaper/index.php/2009/08/no-offense-frank-mccourt/ and please leave a comment.

The author actually argues that smaller classes are “unsubstantiated remedies….- Rather than adhering to rigorous research standards, we resort to sweeping generalizations and sentimental stories about children’s lives.”

Hogwash! Actually, the research is stronger for class size reduction than for nearly any other education reform – and certainly stronger than the favored remedies of the Fordham Institute crowd.

My comments are below.

Thanks,

Leonie Haimson

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leonie-haimson

I'm glad that my column is being so widely read and cited, even by hidebound contrarians.

Actually, the scientific and empirical research is so strong for class size reduction that it is cited as only four evidence-based education reforms that have been proven to work by the Institute of Education Science -- the research arm of the US Dept. of Education. You can check it out yourself by googling the title: "IDENTIFYING AND IMPLEMENTING EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES SUPPORTED BY RIGOROUS EVIDENCE"

There are literally scores of studies indicating that smaller class sizes lead to better results -- not just STAR, which was one of the few large scale, randomized experiments in the history of education reform -- the gold standard according to most researchers.

Over and over again, smaller classes have been shown to lead to fewer disciplinary referrals, more learning, more student engagement, and less teacher attrition. Class size reduction has also been proven to be cost-effective. A recent study showed that in terms of health care, the economic cost-benefits would be expected to surpass childhood immunization.

Alan Krueger, formerly of Princeton and now the chief economist of the US Dept. of Treasury, has demonstrated that the number of positive studies on class size reduction far outnumber the negative ones. The links you provide above do not show otherwise.

Why ideologues and zealots put so much energy into disputing the simple fact that teachers can reach their students better and students learn more in smaller classes is beyond me. Why anyone would seriously argue that only student load matters and not class size -- as though the only learning and personal connection between teachers and students happens outside of the classroom -- I cannot possibly understand.

And Frank McCourt was a huge champion of smaller classes, as evidenced by his frequent comments on the subject as well as his agreement to be honorary chair of the campaign to lower class size in NYC public schools.

Perhaps its because unlike their own favorite strategies, such as privatization, vouchers, the expansion of charter schools and/or teacher incentive pay, none of which has any backing in the research, class size reduction has been proven to work, over and over again. Thus it is the dragon that they are unable to slay.

If anyone would like some fact sheets on this issue, including recent papers with findings about the importance of smaller classes in the middle and upper grades, you can email me at leonie@att.net.

I just took a look at the three links above -- supposedly research studies that weakens the case for smaller classes. One of the studies contains the following statement:

"Studies that used high-quality experimental data have consistently demonstrated the positive effects of small classes on average student achievement-for all students....The findings also indicated that although all types of students benefited from being in small classes, reductions in class size did not reduce the achievement gap between low and high achievers."

{This conclusion, by the way, is not shared by other researchers -- who have shown that class size reduction narrows the achievement gap between racial groups by more than 30%.)

The second is an EdWeek summary of the first article.

The third, an unpublished "discussion" paper by Boozer and Cacciola, also does not dispute the effects of smaller classes, but appears to divide class size into direct and indirect effects, with some of the significant gains exhibited by students in smaller classes attributed to peer effects.

Thus students who are in classes with other students who are doing better because of smaller classes also benefit because their peers are doing better. At least that is what the article seems to conclude: "Small class type treatment induced not just potentially a boost in that child's test score outcome, but an indirect or spillover effect on the child's classmates through the peer group effect. This is what we mean by the feedback or social multiplier effect of the Small class type treatment."

There are many positive feedbacks that occur in smaller classes. The smaller the class, the more engaged are its students, and fewer disciplinary problems occur. The fewer disruptions, the easier it is for teachers to teach and low-performing students to focus and model their behavior on more engaged students. Also there is less stereotyping in both directions -- from teacher to students and students to teacher.

Teachers can figure out quicker who is or is not responding to a specific technique, style or approach, and alter their methods more quickly and effectively to reach specific students; and students feel as though their teachers understand and care about them more, and are willing to put back into the classroom their focus and energy.

None of this is surprising, and none of it is difficult to understand.

In any case, according to my reading of these articles, not one of them weakens the case that smaller classes leads to better outcomes.

Thanks,

Leonie Haimson
Executive Director
Class Size Matters
www.classsizematters.org
http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/

Please make a tax-deductible contribution to Class Size Matters now!

Pakter Whacked Her

The David Pakter open 3020a hearings continues today and tomorrow and it's a show that is worth the price of admission. Open hearings are rare, so this may be a rare opportunity. It's all about giving out watches for achievement and buying plastic plants for the school. Serious matters that require 2 DOE (or more) lawyers. I'm sorry I can't make it tomorrow. And probably not Thursday either, but if someone does go send a report. I'm sure there will be other chances - right until the next century, most likely.

I wrote about a previous visit to Pakter hearing (David made them open to the public) at which the Principal of Fashion Industries HS, after telling just slightly distorted stories, suddenly realized upon cross examination that there was a transcript of a meeting with David and went rigid as she asked, "You mean he taped the meeting?" (June 3rd.) (Note to all teachers who have to meet with principals under weird conditions, get a flower with a mic. Check out these I Spy stores.)

I also commented here. And in more places on this blog.

I went back a few weeks later and heard the Assistant Principal testify about Pakter putting trees in front of the auditorium doors, thus blocking their access. He gave the impression they were giant redwoods. In fact, they were plastic plants David had carried over himself from Home Depot, a few blocks away. The plants kept shrinking as the AP testified. So did he.

I made a return visit July 23. I am sorry I missed the road trip the day before when the hearing officer Douglas Bantl -- a gentleman and nice guy who is being axed as a hearing officer after this case for being too fair -- and the lawyers all went up to Harlem to visit the rubber room.

You see, another serious charge is that Pakter refused to report to the RR because he said it was pointless to sit there and do nothing and the place was harmful to people's health. He didn't mind not getting paid and the DOE didn't mind not paying him. But they are still charging him with not reporting. I guess they really do want to pay people for doing nothing even if they don't want to be paid. But watch the NY Post scream about the awful waste and blame the UFT.

There was a new DOE lawyer who was barely familiar with the case. His name is Phil Oliveri. And there was another DOE lawyer named Wilson Sia with him. You see, it takes two lawyers to talk about watches and plastic plants.

I was only able to stay for the morning and there was one witness - a guidance counselor who testified he saw Pakter showing some watches to a student monitor in the main office while the counselor was heating up his lunch in the microwave.

He thought it odd but not enough to say anything to anyone, until a week later when at a guidance meeting chaired by AP Olivier Poor, who mentioned that some teacher had bought plants for the school. The GC spoke up asking if it was the same guy who was showing watches. Poor perked up and asked him about it.

Soon after Poor wrote an email to the principal Hilda Nieto that the GC has told her he saw Pakter selling watches to a school aide in the school store.

Poor poor. She made 3 errors of fact in one sentence. But the day before she testified that what she wrote was true. Unfortunately for her, when the GC was shown the email, he stuck by his original story that Pakter was just showing the watches to a student in the main office. "Did it seem he was trying to hide that he was doing it," asked NYSUT lawyer Chris Calergy? "No," said the GC.

Now we must remind you that one of the major charges against Pakter is that he was selling watches to the kids. Nada.

That these events took place in November 2006 and it's now -- hmmm, I think August 2009.

That all this time has passed is a sign of

a) dysfunction at the DOE

b)a willingness to spend whatever it takes and however how long to snuff Pakter, who is way past retirement and has ooodles of moolah with his watch company (skip the intro - if you dare) but is way too stubborn to give up.

I wish he'd show me some of them watches. But first I have to look for my high school report cards to prove I had a 90 average.

Damn, just checked and it came to 89.7 over my last 3 years at Thomas Jefferson HS in East NY Brooklyn from 1959-1962. Can I get marked on a curve like they seem to be doing today? Better yet, how about giving me some of that credit recovery stuff? I can fog a mirror with the best of them.

Related
South Bronx School had been tracking the Pakter case.

And NYC Rubber Room Reporter did a long piece back in December chronicling the case up to that point.

Out takes:
Follow up to this morning's post on my new suits.
I already got invited to a school but if they see another suit in any way related to the UFT they will get out the tar and feather. I guess its back to jeans. Anyone got a Bar Mitzvah to invite me to?

I'm Practically Orgasmic

Earlier I wrote that criticism NY Times education coverage makes me hot –The NY Times Should Just Stop Trying to Cover Education.

As I suggested, they shouldn't waste time trying to cover education. Maybe use the resources on food. Or moon rocks.

The Times responded to Leonie and she then deliciously takes them to pieces.

Read all about it at Leonie's blog

The NY Times response, and my reply

Raging Inferno on PS 123/HSA Controversy at Gotham

When I saw Francis Lewis HS Chapter Leader Arthur Goldstein's piece at Gotham Schools last week while I was in LA, I figured it would inspire a lot of controversy. So I was surprised that after a few days, there was not much reaction. Until blogger Ken challenged some of Arthur's facts yesterday. Since then there has been a battle between defenders of public education and pro charter commenters - almost all anonymous. (Do you think there are some HSA PR people lurking?)

Patrick Sullivan has weighed in with some great responses as has Murray Bergtraum HS CL John Elfrank-Dana which begs for a blog post all its own.

One of the edges of the debate has been whether the DOE slips data to charter schools like HSA so they can cream fours and threes (scores) or early childhood ECLAS test results. Sullivan reveals some amazing stuff gleaned by CEC One (lower east side parents council) president Lisa Donlan. More on this later today, but you can read it all at

http://gothamschools.org/2009/07/30/more-equal-than-others/#comments

I did do a bit rewriting of the Emma Lazarus poem for the occasion in this comment:

I would argue there is a generic use of the terms 3’s and 4’s to come to mean students who would be successful. The renovation of the Statue of Liberty now reads:

“Give me your tired, your poor

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

As long as they can score a three or a four.

Out takes (a new feature to celebrate the start of our 4th year in the blogosphere):
I bought 2 suits at L&T great August sale because of great prices. Joseph Aboud for about $200 each. Now when you invite me to visit your schools to talk about ICE or GEM or charters or used cars, I can look like the suits at the UFT, only better because these suits actually fit.

The NY Times Should Just Stop Trying to Cover Education

I'll admit it. I actually get hot when someone takes down the NY Times on the way it covers education. Today, Leonie did the deed over at the NYC Parents blog.

Today’s New York Times article on the Bloomberg/Klein record on test scores is incomplete, biased, and in some cases inaccurate.

The Times biased? Shocking. They're still looking for those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq they reported on in such depth.

Leonie has 5 examples,which you can read with a little click:
NY Times falls in line with the Bloomberg PR spin control

Related:
Mike Antonnucci* reports in EIA on the NEA branch using Randi Redux arguments to sell merit pay to the members: What Happens in Tulsa, Stays in Tulsa. and has some comments on the Greg Toppo USAToday article on charters which caused Rotherham to freak: Tempest in a Toppo.

* Never forget that Mike has a dog in the race and looks to make unions the bad guys. But he also covers things none of the press does, particularly you know who.