We are DROWNING in paperwork, UFT Reacts With DUH!!! Ed Notes Says, "BOYCOTT!!"

There are endless examples of how the UFT leadership talks out of twelve sides of its mouth at the same time. If you go to them with a complaint they often refer to some law suit (remember the senior teachers, class size, and now the closing schools law suits along with numerous others I can't remember). Here some mid-level functionary used the same tactic in regards to paperwork. The screams of anguish coming from many teachers, in particular, elementary school teachers, needs to reach a crescendo before there will be action.

Here is an illustration of how the UFT operates on so many planes. The frustration grows. ICE and Ed Notes only have the power to expose. We could try to bring up another paperwork reduction reso at the DA - if you can even get into the Mulgrew locked meeting and get the floor during the new motion period. But what would be the point? Can you embarrass them into actually doing something - like a boycott of useless paperwork, something that if every teacher were told to refuse might actually have an impact?

Why not try a boycott, even in one district? But the UFT would have to stand firm for each and every teacher who might come under attack. On second thought.....


Not long ago, I received this email from a Chapter Leader in District 24:

Norm, The staff is totally demoralized here. The principal has decreed that everyone should have detailed lesson plans, strategy lessons, and guided reading lessons for every single lesson(as a suggestion but you can get a U if you don't have it). Who can I go to with this? The [UFT] District Rep is of no help. Changes her story on what is acceptable, what is not. I have nothing to stand on. She was here with the borough rep, who had the audacity to say to an entire grade that she doesn't see fear on their faces, therefore things can't be bad.

The principal said that block plan books with just the teaching point are not acceptable. The Dist rep said contract doesn't allow this one day, next day said "You can't just write the teaching point." When I asked for specifics she fumbled, said to write what the activity is. I said the teaching point is the activity. We cannot teach anymore there's no time left if you're going to do every bit of paperwork that they want. And you had better do it, because that's what they look at: DATA They are DATA crazy. DATA that you "collect" to get the paperwork done. DATA drives instruction, yes, out the door. What to do? Can you get someone to bring it up at the DA?


Here is another email sent to ICE a year ago:

We are DROWNING in paperwork. "Data collection" to be specific.

It's special ed : Ieps, report cards, assessment rubrics, project logs, homework logs, log logs , BFAs and the mother lode of all paperwork sinkholes: Alternative Assessment porfolios. I'd conservatively estimate that the job is, at this point, 10% pedagogy and 90% clerical.

The contract says this: "Committees composed equally of representatives of the Board ( sic) and the Union shall be established at the central, district and division levels to review and reduce unnecessary paperwork required of employees." (P.52)

Here's my question: where are said committees? Do they even exist? Can I participate in one?

UFT phone person says it should be addressed via chapter consultation committee. Is this true?

Bad news for us if it is 'cause we don't have one, far as I know and we don't even have chapter meetings.


ICE members responded with JW doing some research:
From JW's Email #15

The Paperwork Overload campaign. The union built a "paperwork committee" into the 2006 contract, in Art. VIII on Educational Reform:

I. Reduction of Paperwork

1. Committees composed equally of representatives of the Board and the Union shall be established at the central, district and division levels to review and reduce unnecessary paperwork required of employees. Any proposed additional paperwork shall be reviewed by the appropriate level committee and such committee may make recommendations to the Chancellor, community superintendent or division head as appropriate. The Board shall not act unreasonably on the committee’s recommendations.

then made a big deal about it in the spring of 2007 with a survey, and pushed it again in a DA resolution a year later (Jan 08). Nothing has come of any of this that I can see. In fact, at my school they're trying to turn some of the teachers into scribes, demanding that they to transfer attendance data into a separate file, probably for Quality Review purposes and for zero added value in the teaching of our kids. We are already taking student attendance probably twice: on the bubble sheets and for our own personal records. If we have HS homerooms, we do it a third time. If I were asked for this third (in some cases fourth) version, I would just turn over xeroxes of my attendance records and ask them to find someone else to extract the data — or pay me per session.

PS: I know teachers are caving on these demands all over town. The union has stopped making solidarity a priority, and we all suffer for it.

The story continues with this report back the other day from the person who emailed ICE with the steps taken and the UFT response:

I decided to approach the issue as a "special education complaint" and entered the essential info the space reserved for that purpose on www.uft.org.

Got good instant feedback from the assistant ("liason"?) to the DR who forwarded it to the the then interim DR who also sent good feedback with promises that there WAS a committee that dealt with the city on paperwork reduction issues, that it DID meet regularly and he'd see to it that my 17 pages of sample redundant paperwork were forwarded to the right people.

DR has left, replaced by an (*appointed*, I understand) permanent replacement.

New DR doesn't respond to emails apparently but in a conversation came back with a quickfire account of how bringing it to a committee really wasn't necessary 'cause the UFT had a suit pending in the courts as we spoke that would deal with this problem.

Searched the net. No mention of any suit, that I could find, anyway. Wrote back to DR. Silence. That was about 1 1/2 mos ago.

So basically the union's had me jumping thru hoops for over a year and have nothing to show for it other than MORE PAPERWORK THAN EVER and a long chain of forwarded email correspondence that establishes that I've been dutifully following this up thru appropriate channels for over a year.

So.... I'm back to square one, asking ICE for advice on my next move.

Charter School Scams Go On as DOE Forced to Cancel Co-Location

UPDATED, Monday, Feb. 22, 3pm

The Daily News is reporting today that two DOE officials also serve as board members of a charter school seeking space from the DOE.

Excerpt:

The city has pulled the plug on a deal to house a controversial charter school in a Bronx school building.

The surprise move came after questions from the Daily News about the charter's current and former board members - two of whom hold powerful jobs at the Education Department.

"It's clear the [Education Department] checked its facts and the numbers just didn't add up," said Dick Dadey, executive director of the Citizens Union. "This was a bad decision that raised all kinds of ethical issues."

Last month, the New York City Charter High School for Architecture, Engineering and Construction Industries won the prized space inside Alfred E. Smith High School, which is being phased down.

Irma Zardoya, a high-ranking Education Department consultant who works at its Tweed headquarters, is the chairwoman of the charter school's board.

Santiago Taveras - an interim acting deputy chancellor with the Education Department - was a board member for the charter until June.

From Patrick Sullivan

Below is a note I sent to one of them, Irma Zardoya. I never got a response.

Ms. Zardoya,

I understand you currently chair the board of the New York City Charter High School for Architecture, Engineering and Construction Industries (AECI), which is seeking space in a Board of Ed facility currently housing the Al Smith HS. I am a member of the Panel for Educational Policy and will vote on this proposal.

At the same time you hold this position with AECI, you appear to be a DOE employee or at least have an administrative role at DOE as "Executive Director of Children's First Initiative". Here I list your directory information.

Name Phone Office Title Company
Zardoya Irma (212) 374-4243 Executive Director of Children First Intensive NYCDOE

I have some questions for you:

Can you explain your status with DOE? Are you an employee? Press accounts have identified you as a retiree.
Who pays for your compensation?
Who is your supervisor?
Has your arrangement been cleared by the Conflicts of Interest Board?

While I don't mean to intrude, it is fairly obvious that holding positions simultaneously with DOE and with a charter school seeking space from DOE could present a conflict of interest. If I am to vote to allocate Board of Ed space to your organization, I feel obligated to perform this due diligence.

Patrick J. Sullivan
Manhattan Member
Panel for Educational Policy / Board of Education
Appointed by Manhattan Borough President Scott M. Stringer

For background see:

NY Times on Bronx Charter School Scam

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/nyregion/16smith.html?ref=nyregion

NYC Educator and Fiorillo Debate UFT Shill

At Gotham Schools, Lost in the school closing debate: what happens to the teachers:

A worthwhile insight into the UFT/AFT thinking on the role of unions as UFT shill Peter (undoubtably Goodman/Ed in the Apple) talks about "nimble" leadership - read this as "give ground because we don't have the ability or chops to fight them" - as he apologizes for all of Weingarten policies. If anyone thinks that this ideologue and Mulgrew are on different pages you are drinking the old K-aid.

In fact, the AFT/UFT cannot fight them because they run a top-down union without rank and file participation and in fact fear such participation because an active rank and file would see them for what they are and toss them out. So, keep 'em ignorant and barefoot.

Luckily, NYC Educator and Michael Fiorillo were there to respond.

I extracted the pertinent comments and posted them at Norms Notes:

NYC Educator and Fiorillo Debate UFT Shill Peter [Guess who and win a free tour of 52 Broadway]

The Reckless Reorganization of District 79

Here is a classic case in detail of how the UFT collaborates with the DOE to sell out one group of teachers at a time. This is their modus operendi.

This is a follow-up to our post yesterday [What the UFT Has In Store - After the Elections, Of Course] where we quoted Peter Goodman- Ed in the Apple- and his praise of the District 79 reorganization - "some iteration of the District 79 Reorganization Plan" which he claims can serve as a model for a new contract.

Roz Panepento's comment: What happened to us - to the staff, the students, the program – set the stage in miniature – with the missteps and complicity of the DOE and UFT – for the drama that is unfolding.

Michael Mulgrew was in charge for the UFT. 'Nuff said for those who are fooled by his election season rhetoric. Just watch what happens after April. Unless there is a big enough vote for ICE-TJC to scare him. I highlighted the pertinent sections relating to UFT actions.

Thanks to Marjorie Stamberg for sending this along.

A RETROSPECTIVE ON "RECKLESS REFORM

By Rosalind Panepento

Dear Colleagues,

As many of you know, I was the ASHS chapter leader at the time of the 2007 "reckless reorganization" of District 79, and the closing of our schools. I have been reflecting on our unique situation: we were some of the first to suffer the chaos of school closings, resulting in hundreds of students education interrupted, and hundreds of our colleagues ending up as ATRs. Now that the Board of Ed is closing 19 more schools, I think our particular struggle is more relevant than ever. I invite you to read this "retrospective" and welcome your comments.

-- Roz Panependo


On January 26, 2010, a rally was held to protest the closing of nineteen city schools by the Department of Education. Over the last few years, the Department of Education has taken it upon itself to close major schools. This time they have gone too far. Schools like Jamaica High School, Norman Thomas High School, Alfred E. Smith Vocational and Maxwell Vocational are among the schools slated to be closed. Despite protests from community leaders, politicians, educators, students, the DOE is doggedly proceeding, claiming they know what is best. The rally was held at Brooklyn Tech, the site of the January PEP meeting (The Panel on Educational Policy was formed by Chancellor Klein and Mayor Bloomberg – the majority of members are Bloomberg appointees). Hundreds of people came to speak in front of an overflow and angry crowd of parents, students and teachers. But the P.E.P. was impervious, riding over these voices and ramming through their agenda of school closures.


I have an urgent need to share information and hope to be able to speak at this meeting. I have a unique perspective. I was a teacher and a UFT chapter leader of a GED program that was closed in May 2007. At that time, there was not the outrage that there is today. We were a program – with no parent base – we were a stepchild of the Board of Ed. What happened to us - to the staff, the students, the program – set the stage in miniature – with the missteps and complicity of the DOE and UFT – for the drama that is unfolding. Like any drama there are themes – but in all drama – there are subtexts. Given my perspective and experience, I may be able to give some information and shed some light on a situation that I believe should never have been allowed to get to this disturbing point. In New York City school system which is still experiencing the aftershocks of 9/11, it is egregious that the Mayor and his cohorts should pursue reform – reckless reform – by jeopardizing the security of staff, students and entire communities. Let me begin at the beginning:


April 2007 – I, along with two former UFT chapter leaders of Auxiliary Services for High School Students* met with members of the DOE to find out the fate of our program for September. Over the past few years, staff had been excessed. (Excessed – displaced – sent to other programs), including many math teachers. There was not much that we could do. But at this April meeting, we were told that our program would be fine. We went away and I told the staff of the good news. *ASHS was to remain intact.


May 2007 – The Friday before Memorial Day Weekend – I was invited to a press conference that Chancellor Joel Klein and DOE District 79 Superintendent Cami Anderson had convened at the last minute.


The press conference was at our site on the Lower East Side. It was announced at this meeting that our GED program, as well as three others, and the high school for pregnant and parenting teens would be closed.


At the press conference, many questions were asked of Klein and Anderson. Answers were not readily available. There was a great deal of stonewalling. Art McFarland, the education reporter for Channel 7, kept asking Chancellor Klein why he was closing the high schools; why not keep the schools open and work with the staff and students? Klein kept repeating that this was what the “girls” at the school for pregnant teens wanted. In fact, New York Times reported a few days later that the staff at Pregnant Teens had no idea about the closings and were very upset.


The UFT special rep for District 79 sat next to me. At the end of the meeting, he got up and left. Usually, he and I would talk and mull over the situations presented. I was surprised by his hasty exit. (I was to learn later from Mike Meehan, then the education reporter for Channel 1 News that the UFT had already signed off on this closing back in April!


The five GED programs would be consolidated into one – to be called GED-Plus. A major question was how many staff would get positions in this reorganization. We were never, ever able to get an answer to this question. Carrie Melago, the education reporter for the Daily News, told me the following September that there were going to be about 276 staff members brought on board.


Originally, we were told that the staffing would be done according to Article 32-B in the UFT contract. Under these UFT/DOE guidelines, only ONLY 50 percent of the original staff can be rehired in the new school. What happens to the rest of the staff? What and who determine who gets to be part of the staff that goes to the new program? However, in the face of our strong vocal protests and angry meetings with reps at the UFT headquarters, the union declared a crisis situation under “Impact Bargaining.” They won an agreement from the DOE that all jobs would be filled from staff at the closed schools. However, the number of jobs in the new schools would be drastically reduced--by the hundreds.


We were told that there would be interviews. We were not given dates or criteria for these interviews. Those who didn’t get assignments would be placed in the now –infamous *ATRs or Absentee Teacher Reserves. These are teachers – usually older- who through the closing of schools and programs – not through their own actions – no longer had regular classrooms.


The UFT and DOE kept reassuring everyone – ATRs would be getting their pay. That’s good, but our dedicated teachers want to be in the classroom doing what they do best – teaching. This was in the beginning period of the ATR phenomenon. The situation grew out of the disastrous 2005 UFT contract which gave away seniority transfer. Before this, if a school or program closed, the teacher could put his or her name on the transfer list and be assigned to another school. But now the Board of Ed has given over all hiring rights to the principal – to hire whomever he wanted. Under a new funding formula, the teacher’s entire salary would come out of the individual school budget. What principal could “afford’ to hire a senior teacher, when he could take two beginning teachers for the same price?


This was the beginning of the vicious press campaign against experienced teachers. Over the next few months, years the press has vilified these teachers who are ”costing the city millions”; who, it was said, were poor teachers, or rated “unsatisfactory.” This was a deliberate untruth. As of the closing of my program, I can assure you that the teachers in my school were not unsatisfactory teachers and did not ask to be placed in this situation. I had to go back to the ASHS staff and give them news contrary to the news I had delivered in April. I had to wait to speak to them in person after the Memorial Day weekend. I had no real specifics about interviews to give them. What we felt about the success of our program did not matter. This was a fait accompli.


JUNE 2007 – Teachers had made summer plans and wanted to know more about the dates of the interviews – not unreasonable, but the DOE never got back to us. We were not told what to tell our students about what was going to happen in September. There was so much uncertainty. We turned to the UFT for assistance. Finally, after repeatedly insisting, we got the UFT to agree to hold a meeting for us one day after the last day of school. The UFT was not too pleased to be dealing with almost two hundred teachers who were very upset and unsettled about the closing of the program that they loved.

Forget the fact that we were unsettled; the UFT leadership complained that we were rude and tried to end the meeting after two hours. Here we were on our time and they had their custodians pulling up the carpets. We had to beg and plead for more time. UFT-then president, Randi Weingarten tried to ramrod us into accepting the DOE’s plan to take the deal under which the schools would be closed, with the union’s acceptance and hundreds of jobs would be lost.. We could go after the DOE for what they were doing, said only one dissenter. Weingarten humiliated him publicly and said that this was what we should do.

This shoddy acceptance of re-hiring WITHOUT set dates and parameters and equal criteria for interviews would come back to haunt – to this day the UFT and DOE have created the monster that is rearing its head by closing more and more schools until even sleeping dogs have been awakened and alerted to the rally on January 26.

We left the UFT meeting that day frustrated and with no more information about the interviews than we had when we walked in. The DOE had betrayed us; the UFT was rude and probably signed off on the terms of the re-hiring practices which were shoddy and set the stage for major trouble in the future.


JULY 2007- we clear out our classrooms – no news of the interview dates. Teachers had made summer plans but we were uneasy – our program was ripped away from us; we had no information about interview dates. In the meantime, the UFT became more sensitive to our situation and had their offices open to us so that we could get our resumes together. Still no definite dates for interviews.

MIDDLE TO THE END OF AUGUST 2007 – Teachers who made travel plans waited for news of the dates of interviews. One of them – a teacher who was in France – did not make the interviews and to this day is still an ATR. Another teacher was in China taking a course -- they planned to interview her over the phone from China!

I was on the way to Buffalo and finally I heard that my interview was to be the next day. I had been around all summer. I finally got another interview date which was to be during the last week of August.

I went to the interview and was informed in a few days that I passed. However, some of the teachers who were not in the City were interviewed on the phone – one of my colleagues was interviewed on the phone while he was working his summer job, helping the food service in a DOE school cafeteria. He is today still an ATR. Some of the ATRs who were out of town could not get dates rescheduled. All of this was chaos- before the beginning of a new school year with a new program that had not even been planned out. Be aware that the hiring practices were not thought out nor was the creation of this new program..

BEGINNING OF SEPTEMBER 2007 – I called a meeting of our staff to discuss how we should support each other during this very stressful time. The UFT was not terribly helpful, so we felt we had to be proactive. One of our members, Marjorie Stamberg, started to blog to inform our co-workers, parents, and staff across the city of our plight. The issues were not only where the teachers would go, but what would happen to hundreds of GED students when they arrived at school, only to find their schools were gone, their programs destroyed.

Teachers were told who had passed the interviews; The teachers who did not do well on the interviews were told to report to “hiring halls” on the first day of school. Again chaos reigned. It was unclear what these teachers would do. The teachers who did not pass the interview process were never told why they did not get hired. We subsequently filed grievances for these teachers to find out why they did not get hired. It took months of prodding UFT to get the status of these grievances. Most of the grievances were simply dropped or died because there were no slots on the limited number of UFT grievances that can go to arbitration.

To this day, I am haunted by a colleague of mine whom I represented, who did not get re-hired. She told me that she realized that she would probably not get her job back but she just wanted to know THE REASON. It is this teacher and the other teachers like her, veteran teachers who loved what they were doing, who prompt me to go to rallies and meetings and wonder why this ATR situation really was created.–In September,


The hiring halls were chaotic and teachers were not given clear directions as to what to do. Interestingly, a UFT rep told me that the teachers, themselves were to blame for not being successful in the hiring halls and the days after. Forget the fact that the situation was the whole creation of the DOE, to throw hundreds of S-rated teachers out of their classrooms.


THE REAL UNDOCUMENTED TRAGEDY OF THIS WHOLE CLOSING AND REORGANIZATION IS THAT ABOUT SIX OR SEVEN HUNDRED OR MORE GED STUDENTS GOT LOST AND DIDN’T KNOW WHERE TO GO. EDUCATIONS WERE ABORTED BECAUSE OF POOR PLANNING. THE TRAGEDY IS THAT THIS SITUATION HAPPENED AND IT COULD NOT BE STOPPED. IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE IF THE JANUARY 26TH RALLY CAN STOP KLEIN AND BLOOMBERG ASSAULTS ON SCHOOLS.


What happened to the teachers who landed in the ATR pool? Some were brought back into our reconstituted program on a one-year trial basis, which could or could not be made a permanent assignment at the end of the year. A number of these teachers eventually got hired in the program, but many did not. Across the city, our ATRs were left to try to get by in the schools they landed in--some situations were better than others. Many of the ATRs who were created in 2007 – remained in this situation until 2009!


As Daily News reporter Carrie Melago told us, about 270 of the original staff of over 700 were hired. The others were left to be ATRS. School started and the fate of students and staff of GED Plus was hit and miss.

NOVEMBER 2007-NOVEMBER 2008 –

The crisis of the ATRs was growing;--there were frequent articles in the New York Post and Daily News and New York Times drawing attention to the ATR situation. The numbers rose to as high as 1,400 and 1,600, as more schools were closed. We were, as I said earlier, the beginning. The articles begin to hammer the ATRs as costly and unsatisfactory. They, as the press reported during this period, were costing the city around 78 million dollars. (A computer that the DOE purchased to track student attendance cost over 80 million dollars but no-one is critical of this) Again, the message seeps out that the Chancellor would like to “terminate” the ATRs who have not work for themselves within a year.

We begin to watch and read carefully the actions of the DOE. We do some serious networking and appearing at Executive Board meetings to highlight the plight of the ATRs takes place. If the ATRs are terminated it would be the end of tenure. This I have suspected all along is the elephant in the room.

At this point, we formed the Committee to Support ATRS, and began to circulate petitions in the schools calling for a citywide rally to draw attention to the ATRs and demand union action to get positions for all who want to be placed. We call for a moratorium on all hiring until all ATRs want positions are placed. This touched a chord with teachers across the schools. “If you’re not ATR now, you could be next!” Petitions flooded in; these were raised at the Delegate Assembly in October, and a rally was planned for November 24. 2008.

Pressure is mounting, now, by many teachers to force the union to do something to quell the numbers of ATRs. Other teachers are beginning to experience what we went through in 2007 and they are frightened that what happened to us will happen to them.

We kept the pressure on. We go to speak at PEP meetings and criticize the closings of schools and the creation of even more ATRs. Chancellor Klein and company exhibit the same manner of stonewalling that they exhibited at the original press conference. We speak to other ATRS. Some have become very discouraged. In the meantime, Teachers for “Teach for America” are still getting jobs. How is this happening and they’re ATRs with no regular classrooms still?

Due to this pressure, shortly before the rally, the UFT leadership announced a deal – a ”Side Agreement” with the DOE to offer principals special incentives to hire the ATRs. They tried to get us to call off the rally, and when that didn’t work, they organized a “wine and cheese” meeting at the UFT union hall to draw teachers away from the rally in front of Tweed! It didn’t work. Hundreds turned out to the rally that day. There was, however, little press there that day -- the UFT leadership tried their best to downplay the action at Tweed.

[Editor's Note: See my 2 part video of that day where UFT/Unity crew sip wine and eat cheese while ATRs and supporters rally at Tweed:

The Video the UFT Doesn't Want You To See: The ATR Rally]


THE “SIDE AGREEMENT”

Randi Weingarten e-mailed all of the members of the Executive Board at around 3 PM on Monday, November 18 to vote on the “Side Agreement” that she had negotiated with the DOE concerning the ATR situation. The pressure of the rally and many teacher/ATRs had forced her to take some actions. Suffice it to say because of the last minute notice, hardly any executive board members were able to make the meeting. They had to give their votes over the phone. I was technically not supposed to be allowed in this meeting. I was not an executive board member, but because of my involvement in this situation, I went and spoke to the issue at hand.

According to the Side Agreement, all ATRs would be “safe” – collecting full salaries, doing nothing much, unless principals wanted them to. Some ATRs went to work on a regular basis in regular schools but never were taken off ATR status. Principals didn’t want to pay their salaries and instead hired new teachers (who have not advanced along the salary "steps.". Among the proposals which supposedly would encourage principals to hire ATRs were:

1. Principals would be subsidized by the Central Board if they hired ATRs. Out of their budgets the principals would only have to pay beginners salary.

2. Chancellor Klein strongly suggested to principals that they hire these ATRs, but he never said that it was mandatory before any new hiring.


Since this was a side agreement to the contract, which was to expire in late 2009, It was not clear what would happen in 2010.

The Executive Board members – what few there were – agreed, for the most part with Weingarten. I did not. There were too many vagueries. I had seen this before. I wanted to know, if this was a Side Agreement to the present contract, what would happen after 2010 when the contract expired? I strongly felt that the chancellor should have mandated that principals hire the ATRs before any new hires. For these reasons, I voiced my objections. Weingarten listened but the Side Agreement was hastily passed;


FEBRUARY 2009-SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2009

By now, the economy is in serious trouble. Schools open in September. Prospective kindergarten students need to be wait-listed! Classes are overcrowded. More schools are slated to be closed. The public at-large is beginning to get savvy to the notion that all is not well with the DOE. Parents start stronger protests; Critics of this administration become more vocal. In the meantime, to the dismay and despair of all, Bloomberg has announced that he will run for a third term…something that he vowed he would never do.

My fear was that, with a third term, he would finish off what he had started, with the ATRs termination. Classes are very overcrowded but the ATRs are not being used to deal with the overcrowding and the press takes note of this. Finally, Klein does something out of character; because of financial necessity, he is now urging the principals to hire the very same ATRs he villified only a few months before.

The Side Agreement has been ineffective in placing the ATRs. After a steady diet of vilification of these teachers in the press, what principal is willing to hire these teachers.

So in May of 2009, the UFT and DOE negotiates a “hiring freeze”. This is a moratorium on any new hiring until ATR teachers are placed. There are a few exceptions in fields like Special Ed, and math. There is still little relief. Principals just don’t fill positions, juggling with subs and programming, sand-bagging until the hiring freeze is lifted. That October the DOE announces that principals will lose any funding for vacancies “left open” Finally, there is a bit of relief for the ATRs

NOVEMBER 2009

Bloomberg literally buys a third term and the Wednesday before Thanksgiving goes to Washington, where in the presence of Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, he unveils his plan for educational reform which contains some of these items…that he will hire city lawyers to go to Albany to help change the laws of New York State to obtain. They are:

1. He wants the cap on the limit on charter schools changed from 200 – 400
2. He wants ATRs who have not found a job after a year to be terminated. There it is in black and white.
3. He wants to expedite the process to remove teachers who are in “rubber” rooms.

Note: I was in Washington in October 2009 – it was curious that Michele Rhee, that city's Superintendent of Education, has closed schools, and over 400 staff were out of jobs. Seniority does not exist there. One teacher who had 32 years of experience was out of a job. There was a tremendous amount of public support but I don’t think they got jobs back.

4. More schools to be closed

There it is – eliminate these teachers. Right now the UFT is sticking by its stance of refusing to let the ATRs be abandoned. The union is insisting these dedicated teachers lost their positions only through the closing of schools or programs, and not through any failing on their part. This is a major obstacle to the mayor's plans. He would like to get a concession on this and impose a cap. By doing so he would effectively get rid of tenure. If a teacher can be removed from the classroom and then fired, there is no tenure. Say what we want, tenure is a necessary tool in a field that is as subjective as teaching. This would be a feather in the mayor's cap – he has hired Joel Klein who was one of the legal eagles who broke up Microsoft to break up the Board of Ed in New York City. Since mayoral control, it has been unrecognizable as any Department of Education. Fiscally, the DOE in its current form is as irresponsible, if not more than his predecessors.

JANUARY 2010

The start of the New Year, and the closings of twenty schools have been announced. Next week we will see what will happen. What will it take to keep these schools from closing? How many new ATRs will be created by these closings? How many more sudents will be lost?

Thousands turned out on JANUARY 26TH at Brooklyn Tech.. We have to continue to make our voices heard.

What the UFT Has In Store - After the Elections, Of Course

UFT shill Peter Goodman uses his blog to float trial balloons. Here is a goodie where he praises the District 79 reorganization plan (which was Mulgrew's baby if you are looking for signs as to where he really stands), the Detroit teachers contract (described in Substance as the worst in the history of the AFT) and New Haven contracts.

The dissolution of the ATR pool, the shrinking of the rubber rooms and an expedited discipline process, using student achievement data in the tenure granting process, salary compensation schedules that include raises for “merit” are all possible for the creative.

Some iteration of the District 79 Reorganization Plan, the Peer Review Plus Program (Article 21J), peer review (including teachers in the evaluation of probationary teachers), differentiated staffing similar to the Lead Teacher (MOA, 2005, para 13), perhaps some of the elements in the New Haven and Detroit contracts could produce a “win-win” contract. A contract that the mayor could laud as a national model and a contract that would satisfy the union membership.

Read the gory details at Ed in the Apple. GAG, GAG, GAG.

As one contact just wrote me, "2005 proves the membership will go for absolutely anything."

Michael Fiorillo wrote:
Someone I know works in District 79 (Alternative High Schools) and the reorganization (overseen at the time by Michael Mulgrew) was a disaster for teachers and students. Every teacher had to re-apply for their job, and fewer than half were re-hired. The resources are being cut back, students are seeing opportunities for schooling limited, and the district is infested with Ivy League and TFA know-nothing parasites.

Marjorie Stamberg responded:
Michael, your remarks on D 79 are well put! The recent NY Times profile on District 79 superintendent, Cami Anderson, a TFA "superstar" was revealing -- their most important "goal" -- not educating kids, but "moving up" the corporate school ladder with resume builders like the D79 "restructuring ' (i.e., closing schools, throwing teachers into the ATR pool, losing kids, denying special ed services, etc).

Roz Panepento, former chapter leader of ASHS, (Auxiliary Services for High Schools) one of the D79 schools which was first down-sized, then closed, has written a retrospective on the catastrophic 2007 reorganization of D79 and our battle to save staff positions and save kids. I would like to post it on some of the blogs, for colleagues information.

--Marjorie

Charter Scams Will One Day Make Extinct Community Control Scandals Look Clean

Susan Otterman's NY Times story is a good follow-up to Rachel Monahan's piece on the 3 charter school scam in the Daily News yesterday. Meanwhile the Post worries about a few rubber room people whose total salaries come to a flea speck compared to these scams.

Wait till the money flows through Arne's scam artists. There will be no crook that won't open a charter - the John Gotti Charter School of Fashion? The Rudy Blogo School of Hair Design?

Remember the days when people in some districts made headlines by taking home dilapidated pianos and how the crooked districts was a major justification for mayoral control? Read the tea leaves as these scandals grow and grow and we see the day when the same arguments will be used to dismantle mayoral control.

Even my wife, who is generally sick of 40 years of ed talk was outraged at today's NY Times story.

Susan Ohanian in her daily email says:

When the mayor is in charge of the schools then pseudo-teachers tell students to
write an essay about carpentry instead of handing them a hammer. See
http://susanohanian.org/show_atrocities.php?id=9155

At Bronx Vocational School, Concern Over Plan for Charter

Ohanian Comment:
This is a page 19 story. One can wonder why it isn't headlined on page 1. It is so quintessentially ripe with the elements of Mayor Bloomberg's control of the schools. For some reason, there's no place for reader comment at tne New York Times site.

At the soon-to-be-closed Alfred E. Smith Career and Technical Education High School, students learn trades--like heating and ventilation, plumbing, electrical installation, carpentry and architectural engineering. At the A.E.C.I. charter, teachers say they use the building trades as an academic theme, discussing architecture in global history class and asking students to write essays about opportunities in construction.

A total of 22 technical shops at Alfred E. Smith are scheduled to close. Let them write essays about opportunities in construction!

And look at the qualifications of the mayor's man who is the city's technical education chief:

Gregg B. Betheil: Prior to joining the New York City Department of Education, Mr. Betheil was senior vice president of the National Academy Foundation. Take a look at who's on the board there. Betheil has served as assistant principal of Martin Luther King, Jr. High School in New York City, where he also taught American history and finance. Mr. Betheil is a former member of the South Orange-Maplewood Board of Education in New Jersey. A public high school graduate, he holds a BA in government, law and history from Lafayette College, an MA in social studies education and a MEd in educational administration from Columbia University.

And take a look at the connections here:

Richard Izquierdo Arroyo: The nephew of City Councilwoman Maria del Carmen Arroyo resigned as head of a Bronx charter school she helped fund -- a day after he was charged with embezzlement.

Richard Izquierdo Arroyo -- who's also Assemblywoman Carmen Arroyo's grandson and chief of staff -- notified the city he was resigning as chairman of the board of the South Bronx Charter School for International Culture and the Arts.

His city councilwoman aunt sponsored $1.5 million in taxpayer funds this fiscal year to help build a permanent facility for the school, which is temporarily housed in a public school.

$1.5 million so students can write essays about opportunities in construction.

One can wonder what Richard Izquierdo Arroyo's qualifications were to head a high school--qualifications other than blood, that is.

In Charter Scam in New York City Exposed, Larry Miller notes:

Smith accepts all students who apply. AECI only takes students by lottery.

At Smith, 21% of the students are in a special education program; at AECI, only 9% are.

At Smith, 71% of the students come from such low-income families that they qualify for the federal free lunch program; at AECI, only 47% do.

What happens to the poorest kids, to that huge special education population, to those who need the most help?

Miller also notes that AECI doesn't seem to be able to keep a teaching staff, and he concludes that new City controller John Liu needs to ask tough questions fast. And he needs to follow the money going to charters, because Klein's people are not.

About the Bunkum Awards

The term 'bunkum,' meaning essentially 'nonsense,' came about because of a long-winded and pointless speech given in 1820 on the House floor by Congressman Felix Walker of Buncombe County, North Carolina. The Bunkum Awards help to highlight nonsensical, confusing, and disingenuous reports produced by education think tanks.

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

Five "Honorees" of Bunkum Awards Announced for their Contributions to Sub-Par Education Research February 15, 2010 High-Production Values and Eye-Catching Charts and Graphs Can Never Replace Strong Methodology and Sound Research Practices BOULDER, Colo. and TEMPE, Ariz. (February 15, 2010) -- State education agencies and local school districts are increasingly asked to make evidence-based decisions about school reform initiatives, often assuming that all evidentiary claims are the result of high-quality research. Unfortunately, much of the evidence offered in policy debates is based on research reports that have bypassed the quality control mechanisms of academic research. In an effort to help education policy makers separate the wheat from the chaff, expert third party reviews are provided by the Think Tank Review Project, a collaboration of the Education and Public Interest Center (EPIC) at the University of Colorado at Boulder and the Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) at Arizona State University. Each year the reports identified by experts as the worst of the worst are awarded a "Bunkum." The Think Tank Review Project today announced five "honorees" for 2009. While the social science of the winning reports was sub-par, they typically had very high production values, glossy paper, multi-color printing, and artful layouts. "Given the bibliographies, footnotes, charts and tables, policymakers or laypeople may be forgiven for thinking that these honoree reports are based on the highest quality research. We hope that our expert reviews have helped to correct that impression," said EPIC director Kevin Welner. The 2009 Bunkum Award honorees: The Time Machine Award Weighted Student Formula Yearbook 2009 Authored by Lisa Snell, and published by the Reason Foundation. In a truly breathtaking innovation, the report enters its time machine and attributes positive reform outcomes to policy changes that had not yet been implemented. The Data Dodger Award How New York City's Charter Schools Affect Achievement Authored by Caroline M. Hoxby, Sonali Murarka & Jenny Kang, and published by the National Bureau of Economic Research. New York City's charter schools might genuinely be improving student outcomes; however, this study -- because of the information it withheld and its methodological shortcomings -- does not and cannot resolve the issue. The Misdirection Award: Keep Our Eyes Off What Works Reroute the Preschool Juggernaut Authored by Checker Finn and published by the Hoover Institution. The report misdirects readers from a mountain of empirical, peer-reviewed and widely accepted evidence, and instead cherry-picks a few weak studies to critique proposals for universal preschool. The Innovations in Promoting Alternative Certification Award An Evaluation of Teachers Trained Through Different Routes to Certification: Final Report Authored by Jill Constantine, Daniel Player, Tim Silva, Kristin Hallgren, Mary Grider & John Deke, and published by the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. The authors report 'no evidence' that traditionally trained teachers provided better student scores than alternatively trained teachers. The report does not bother to set forth caveats to the 'no evidence' conclusion, but there should, in fact, have been many, many caveats -- including small sample size, sampling methods, and a failure to distinguish the treatments. Also interesting: the study actually included many analyses that found traditionally trained teachers outperformed their alternative route counterparts. It's just that the authors chose not to fully report and acknowledge these findings in the report's conclusions. The Annual Friedman Foundation Johnny One-Note Award Multiple Reports by the Friedman Foundation Multiple authors, all published by the Friedman Foundation. The Friedman Foundation has, over the past three years, cloned the same study on the cost of drop-outs in at least seven states, a tax credit voucher report in at least six states, and opinion polls on school choice in 15 states. Amazingly, all these reports lead to the same conclusion: vouchers and other forms of school choice will save money and improve student outcomes. The basic technique used by Friedman researchers is to take the same report, change the name of the state, plug in some state-specific data, vary the title a bit, and come up with the predetermined conclusion. This year's honorees were selected following expert third-party reviews of research reports published by think tanks and other research organizations. Reports reviewed by the Think Tank Review Project are carefully selected. Every day the web sites of prominent think tanks are visited to identify new research publications for possible review. If a report is deemed of sufficient importance, it is then assigned for review to an independent scholar with expertise in the area of inquiry. A complete analysis of this year's Bunkum Award winners can be found at: http://epicpolicy.org/think-tank/bunkum-awards. About the Bunkum Awards The term 'bunkum,' meaning essentially 'nonsense,' came about because of a long-winded and pointless speech given in 1820 on the House floor by Congressman Felix Walker of Buncombe County, North Carolina. The Bunkum Awards help to highlight nonsensical, confusing, and disingenuous reports produced by education think tanks. CONTACT: Nikki Rashada McCord Associate Director Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC) University of Colorado at Boulder (303) 735-5290 Nikki.McCord@colorado.edu **********

Time for a Change in Leadership: Rhee and Parker Gotta Go in 2010

by Candi Peterson
http://thewashingtonteacher.blogspot.com/

It is disgusting to me when unions do not look out for the interests of their members yet willingly take dues from workers who join and then act in the best interests of the employer. Unions can help level the playing field to prevent abusive practices by employers, but this is not our reality in Washington, DC, under the helm of George Parker, Washington Teachers' Union (WTU) President. Once again, Parker has given Chancellor Michelle Rhee another out after she sullied the reputation of 266 laid off teachers in her comments to Fast Company magazine in which she said: "I got rid of teachers who had hit children, who had sex with children, who missed 78 days of school." Parker as a union leader barely seems indistinguishable from DCPS management and appears more interested in maintaining his good relationship with Rhee rather than upholding his legal obligation to protect longtime dues paying members from these ongoing acts of defamation and serial bullying. Failing to take Rhee's comments to task by asking for only an apology has gotten us nowhere with unsubstantiated allegations against 266 laid off teachers and now a shift in focus to more than two hundred new allegations of abuse (reported to occur in 2008-2009) against the entire workforce of DC teachers as reported by The Washington Post.

Not addressing the issue of Rhee's demonizing DC teachers has lead to negative and distorted media images throughout this country. Our union president has been unable to develop a strategic plan to address Rhee's frequent negative anecdotes about DC teachers and often is unresponsive to Rhee's ongoing claims in the press. Whether on local education blogs or in newspaper articles, teachers are willing to speak out and express their views but are reluctant now more than ever about identifying themselves, their schools, or the workplace atrocities that occur due to fear of retaliation and lack of support from our union. Teachers who stand up in the face of these types of adversities, like Hardy middle school English teacher Jann'l Henry, who had students write more than 150 letters to Mayor Fenty as part of a class assignment, defy the odds. Subsequently, Hardy students went to the DC city council when their letters went unanswered by the mayor, in an act of civil disobedience and support of their desire to have their principal (Patrick Pope) remain at Hardy. I agree with Nathan Saunders, WTU's General Vice President's, who commented, "We can't teach students to enforce their rights if we are afraid of enforcing ours."

Through our union, teachers should have a voice to lift up their concerns about working and learning conditions, best practices, professional development, wages, benefits, workplace bullying, and contractual violations so that we can have democracy in the workplace. It is a reasonable expectation that our union should take the lead in standing up and demanding accountability and the resignation if need be of a chancellor, Michelle Rhee, who, in the words of retired DC math teacher turned blogger, Guy Brandenburg, "denigrates DC Public Schools every chance she gets."

Editor Note:

Nathan Saunders is running against Parker for President. If you follow the story in Detroit which I printed two posts down and the fact that CORE is challenging in Chicago and other opposition forces are showing up strong in other cities, you can see something is afoot. Now I believe that Randi will use goonism in the AFT (as she did this summer in Portland) to keep local activists from getting control of the big cities.

Ed Notes Retro, Oct. 2003: We know it is going to be a disaster

When this was printed in Ed Notes over 6 years ago, most of the information we had came from George Schmidt in Chicago. Recent actions on the part of the UFT make it seem they just discovered this. But they knew all along and purposely did not educate the members as to what was coming. Even their recent "it's Klein mismanagement" campaign is part of their obfuscation of the national issues. The AFT, which is controlled by the UFT, is ready willing and able to make deals with the ed deformers. Some people think things have changed with a new leadership. Just watch what the AFT does in July in Seattle when the 800 members of NYC's Unity Caucus go there and vote as one to endorse every single policy of Randi Weingarten.

One of the successes of the resistance is that this story that was getting out to such few outlets 6 years ago is seeping into the mainstream. Note how many people at the Jan. 26 PEP meeting used so much of this terminology.


We know it is going to be a disaster
by Norm Scott

Some are comparing it to a hostile corporate takeover. But then George Schmidt has been warning us for years from Chicago about the impact of the corporate model and its companion, Mayoral control on a school system: That the top down corporate business model of running a school system with people who don’t have a clue about what goes on in a real school will never work. That control of education in the hands of politicians instead of educators leads to manipulation of the educational process for the purpose of winning elections. That attempts will be made to privatize. That blame would be placed on teachers for the problems. (It certainly can never be the fault of their faulty policies or the fact that some kids are really difficult to teach). That enormous funds would be put into staff development as a result of this philosophy instead of focusing on class size reduction (the “bad teachers will still be bad whether they have 35 or 10 in a class” argument.) That enormous numbers of high salaried “Executives,” many of whom are educational theorists or corporate bottom-line types, would be hired to “manage” the system. That there would be a shut down of information, a gag order on all employees and a system of lies and manipulation of data to put a good face on all that is happening. That employees will show their bosses the so-called “Potempkin Villages” where the face of things are made to look good (see: stress on bulletin boards) while the decay underneath is covered up. That kids would be pushed out of schools to make results look better. That dropout rates will be hidden. That test scores would be emphasized to the exclusion of all other learning like science and social studies...

Ed Notes, October 2003

Detroit Teachers Recall of Weingarten Ally Ignored

With UFT elections coming I've always maintained that if we were to win, Unity wouldn't let us take office. That they would find some way to invalidate the results. Watch what's going on in Detroit as we received this email from Steve Conn. If they do actually remove Johnson as Pres watch the AFT put the local into receivership and take over the local. - Norm


Fellow AFT members and defenders of public education!

Links below will take you to videos of the February 11 general membership meeting of the Detroit Federation of Teachers.

Detroit teachers have been fighting to recall DFT President (and major Randi Weingarten ally) Keith Johnson as part of the fight to stop the Arne Duncan / Rob Bobb dismanteling of public education in Detroit.

Watch as Johnson illegally rules all members' motions out of order to avoid the Recall Vote against him.

Watch as the Detroit Police Gang Squad tries to carry out Johnson's plan to remove a female teacher.

Watch the membership meeting erupt in anger and demand Johnson's recall.

Detroit Federation of Teachers union meeting of February 11, 2010: According to the DFT constitution, this meeting was supposed to hear the charges against President Johnson (brought by 1300 members' petition signatures on January 7), allow him an opportunity to respond, and then take a vote on removing him.

Instead of following the union constitution, Johnson asserted that he had the right to summarily dismiss the petitions, and came to the meeting seen here with his own agenda. You can watch and listen as Johnson rules out of order all our motions to include the trial in the agenda, further evidence of how he violates members' fundamental rights and why he needs to be removed.
Detroit teachers want to remove Johnson for failing to represent us in this summers contract negotiations with state-imposed Financial Manager Robert Bobb, as Bobb works to privatize and dismantle public education in Detroit, including school closings, mass lay-offs, and converting public schools to charter schools. Johnson and Bobb have been working together to carry out the Arne Duncan/Randi Weingarten attack on public education in Americas major cities.
Teachers and students demand resources and support to achieve equal, quality, integrated education!

http://www.youtube.com/user/DFTmembers

Also listen to a Michigan Public Radio report about the meeting that has been broadcast across the country:

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/michigan/news.newsmain/article/0/0/1611414/Top.Stories/DFT.Meeting.Breaks.Down.Amid.Accusations.of.Vote-Rigging

1300 DFT members signed the recall petitions

The members alone have the right to decide whether the charges are valid

From the DFT Constitution & By-Laws:

Article VIII Recall of Officers

(a) Petition for the recall of any officer for violation of his obligation of office shall be initiated by a recall petition clearly stating the specific charges and signed by not fewer than one thousand (1000) members in good standing from not fewer than twenty percent (20%) of the schools or work locations.

(b) No officer shall be subjected to recall proceedings without being given at least 30 days written notice of the charges preferred against him and an opportunity to appear before the membership at a regular or special meeting. Two-thirds of those present and voting at the meeting shall be required to recall the officer.

Seung Ok on Charter Schools

Seung Ok, who is running on the ICE-TJC slate for Vocational HS VP (Mulgrew's old position) has been pretty active today in the charter school war room.

He posted a superb piece of MUST READ writing on how charter schools harm public schools which we posted at GEM and at the ICE UFT Election blog.

Then he found this article and made some important comments on where charter schools, which have roots in white supremacy in the south, are going to go eventually. Is it any wonder that the NAACP has woken up and seen the charters for what they are?

Seung Ok writes:

Here's an article from Georgia talking about the desire for private school parents to eye charter schools as an access for public money:

"In fighting approval of a regional charter school, southwest Georgia superintendents allege that the Pataula Charter Academy would signal a return to the era in Georgia when blacks and whites attended different schools.

The debate is re-opening old wounds of race and disparate education in districts still under court desegregation orders

One of seven charter schools — public schools that operate with greater autonomy in exchange for greater accountability — approved by a new state commission, Pataula plans to open in the fall as a regional public k-8 school. It will enroll 440 students from Randolph, Calhoun, Early, Clay and Baker counties. Some districts now want the state Board of Education to stop Pataula.

Along with drawing from the majority black schools in the region, Pataula is attracting students from two private academies, which are virtually all-white.

“Initially, you will see more urgency on the side of private school parents who are tired of paying tuition,” said Ben Dismukes, a Pataula founder and himself the parent of two private-school students.

The interest of private school parents has sparked worries that Pataula is a seg academy posing as a public charter school. To counter the innuendo that it is a “white school,” Pataula has held lotteries for slots in the grades that were oversubscribed and encouraged all families to apply. "

---good luck to those minorities winning lottery seats among a mass of white student candidates. Plus, the article goes on to say, that since charter schools are not mandated to provide buses, few of the black students can actually make it out to these charter schools in white districts.

http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2010/02/06/new-regional-charter-school-not-a-blackwhite-issue/?cxntfid=blogs_get_schooled_blog

Millot: Sound Decision or Censorship at TWIE (II)

by Marc Dean Millot


Please be assured that this isn't really about you or the substance of your post. 
Issues of transparency and accountability have been raised by several folks including hess and edweek…

you try and make it seem to yourself like this is about some higher issue, but it's really just ego and refusing to acknowledge your role.

Readers might reasonably guess that the first quote is from someone who supports the argument I made on February 10 in School Matters http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2010/02/millot-sound-decision-or-censorship-at.html; the second from someone who does not. Both quotes can be found here. In a sense they would be right. The first is part of This Week in Education (TWIE) http://www.thisweekineducation.com/ Editor Andrew Russo’s email to me of 11:06 AM (Saturday the day after he pulled “Three Data Points. Unconnected Dots or a Warning?” . (http://borderland.northernattitude.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/millot_warning.pdf) from his blog. The second, his email of 11:55 PM Monday, sent after firing me from TWIE. (A complete email record can be found here. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/26695687/Millot-Russo-Email-Communications-February-5-9-2010)) A new man can emerge over 60 hours – especially when he’s under pressure.

Why did Russo pull the post? The short answer, at least the short answer Russo offered over the phone Saturday, lies in his contract with Scholastic. TWIE is not editorially independent. Scholastic decides what will remain on his blog. On Friday afternoon, Russo’s point of contact at Scholastic (I was not taking notes and can’t remember his name) received a call from Andrew Rotherham with the charge he made on Eduwonk (LINK NOW BROKEN) (http://www.eduwonk.com/2010.02/hogworts-on-the-hudson.html)). Russo thought the relationship might have a personal dimension. The contact called Russo and told him to pull the post, a call Russo had received three times since he moved TWIE to Scholastic in late 2007. This was Friday afternoon, Russo was on his way to a mountain weekend, so he did what he was told, hoping to walk the cat back by Monday.

Why did Russo decide to keep my post off TWIE on Friday and fire me Monday? That’s a longer story.

As I’ve admitted before I have an interest in the case. This is why I released a complete record of our email communications to the education media and posted on the web. With the exception of a Saturday morning phone call - that I will do my best to recall in this post, email constitutes the complete record of our discussions. I also believe that there’s more at stake than my reputation. This case offers an unusual opportunity for readers to look at the sausage factory of debate over federal education policy, the role of the new philanthropy in education reform, and the idea of commercially viable, editorially independent “grass roots” or “small business” sites for news and commentary in public education – sites that are not the web extension of mainstream print media.

I’ve known Alexander Russo for several years. Our relationship has been conducted almost entirely by email. We’ve never met face-to-face, and rarely used the phone. We are not social acquaintances, but business colleagues, and asynchronous communications have worked well. We are different, yet similar. Aside from the usual differences in age and experience, our styles differ. Alexander once described his blog style as “snark,” I’d call it “edgy.” He didn’t define snark, but based on observations of his blog, I’d characterize it as brief comments, narrowly tailored “zings” that hit the best or weakest substantive point of the object of his writing and the very button of the object most likely to elicit pleasure or pain. I’d describe myself as more linear and formalistic, and more inclined to nail every point to the floor with every argument, form every perspective I can think of.

We manage to share something of a “bad boy” image, although he’s probably more in the style of Billy Idol (to date myself). There’s an insider quality, but also a flavor of the guy who slipped into the party through the back door, and allowed to stay because no one has to accept responsibility for his invitation. He’s the guy who portrays himself as part of the establishment but independent of it. I too have an inside/outside image. I’ve held reasonably senior positions in some well-established institutions on matters of market-based school reform since the early 1990s. I’ve been called “pugilistic.”

Russo and I also share a real interest in the commercial possibilities of web-based media in public education, its potential for opening up the communications infrastructure affecting policy decision fora, and enormous skepticism in what I’ve called the new philanthropy’s keiretsu.

(http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/edbizbuzz/2008/02/deconstructing_a_social_keiret.html) I am not entirely sure of the basis for Russo’s doubts. Mine are based on strong doubts about the financial viability of the organizations and models that have received their investment, the broad implications of their failing investment strategy for the kind of market in public school improvement I’ve worked for and – strongly related to my business assessment, the social implications of their top-down centralized management philosophy.

Russo’s and my experimentation with business models led to different outcomes. Based on my experience at New American Schools, I started K-12Leads and Youth Service Markets, a low-cost (and of course high-quality) RFP reporting service for organizations providing school improvement and similar niche-market services. Russo developed This Week in Education into a web-based news and commentary business, ultimately sponsored by Scholastic.

Start: Friday, April 13, 2007

Move to Edweek, September 10

I tried to get a k-12 news and commentary business going, tried School Improvement Industry Weekly,” a web-enabled publication, tried a podcast, and wrote a market-oriented blog on my own (http://archive.edbizbuzz.com/blog )

and for edweek.org called edbizbuzz. (http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/edbizbuzz/2007/09/)

I enjoyed them immensely, but my style of blogging is simply too costly to be a hobby. In the end I could not find a plausible financial model, and wasn’t as savvy about the business as Russo.

I admire Russo’s entrepreneurship, and the way he’s built a business around his “edgy” style. The difference between TWIE and every other k-12 news aggregator has been Russo. I’d say he is edgy, chose to cultivate an edgy personae, attracted a growing readership that likes him edgy, and found a source of competitive advantage in the media business in the perception that he is edgy. Scholastic’s decision to invest in him surely had something to do with the fact his edgy approach has appealed to the demographic of young, internet-dependent educators that will be making the big purchasing decisions within the next decade.

I moved edbizbuzz to edweek.org in September 2007, When Russo announced his move from edweek.org to Scholastic in 2008, I posted a comment,

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/edbizbuzz/2007/11/education_blogs_and_the_school.html

excerpted below:

What Russo has done, in effect, is to launch what I think is the first independent commercial blogsite sponsored by a direct relationship with one advertiser. … Over the next several years a teaching force that got its information via paper media is being replaced with one that relies far more on the internet. Buying into a blog like TWIE is cheap. If it takes off, the investment will have a disproportionate payoff….. (Uncompensated) unaligned bloggers' value-add/competitive advantage has been adopting the independent strategy. As the first professional k-12 blogger to choose free agency in our market, Russo has a special responsibility to stay on the straight and narrow.

Little did I know that I’d be a test case.

Over the years Russo and I read and occasionally cited and commented on each other’s blogs. I stopped blogging in October of 2008. My one-year agreement with edweek was up, I had several family issues taking a great deal of my energies, and the time required to maintain a daily blog had hurt my business. I decided to stop for a while, but Russo and I stayed in touch.

My agreement in November, 2009 to write a weekly or so column for TWIE was prompted by the fact that the original draft of Tom Toch’s report on CMOs for Education Sector had come into my possession. The differences between Toch’s draft and the final report issued by EdSector were so vast, the events leading to the second draft so unethical, and the fact both so well-hidden that I felt obligated to make the original draft public. I emailed Russo intending to provide him with a scoop, and ended up agreeing to his offer to write a weekly column, over which would have complete editorial control, for $200 a month, for six months.

Did I mention that I’m a lawyer? My view is that if people intend to do what they say, they’ll put it in writing. The monthly payment was relevant to me in that I did not want to write for free, but it was important to me to reinforce that we had a contract that gave me editorial control. The six-month period was enough time to see how this arrangement would work, and not long enough to stick one of us in a position we didn’t like. In my view, Russo’s willingness to do this was based on a sense that I might help keep his blog interesting with original content, that he knew my approach and trusted my judgment, and that it was another manifestation of his edgy style.

I proceeded to write a series of series on problems in the charter school markets the academic fraud of EdSectors CMOs report, Imagine Schools violation of state laws concerning charter a nonprofit governance, and the Massachusetts Board of Education’s abuse of the chartering process. All were pretty aggressive. I was under no illusion that opponents of charter schools, privatization, and Edsector would use them to advantage. But I’ve never thought that pretending bad actors don’t exist served a helpful role with the vast majority of people who have no made up their minds. Moreover, I don’t want a market dominated by bad actors, and I’m not going to sit on my hands and let it happen. None of my work led Russo to suggest he should have a formal role in the editorial process. And neither Russo nor I were naive – we expected push back from the subjects of my posts

This lengthy discussion provides a context for Russo’s decisions during the February 5-9 period. They are not isolated events, but a predictable point in the trajectory of his business model.

TWIE readers and I had every reason to believe Russo retained editorial control under his contract with Scholastic. He didn’t publish the contract, but TWIE seemed to operate pretty much as it had at edweek.org and as a standalone blog before. And there’s this November interview with Scholastic Administr@tor Executive Editor Kevin Hogan in Publishing Executive’s INBOX (http://www.pubexec.com/article/scholastic-administr-tor-enters-blogosphere-executive-editor-kevin-hogan-adding-popular-blogger-his-team-83070/2) column:

INBOX: What contractual/payment arrangements were made with Russo?

HOGAN: His arrangement is essentially the same as you would find for contributing editors in the print world.

INBOX: What process have you established for comments on the blog? Are they moderated by someone on the magazine staff, or does Russo handle the moderating/posting of comments?

HOGAN: People are free to leave comments, anonymous or not, on the blog page. Russo handles any moderating that needs to happen. Also, it’s important to note that Alexander is his own editor, and his blog is completely independent from the opinions of the rest of the magazine staff or of Scholastic at large. (Millot’s emphasis)

So why did Russo keep my post off TWIE and fire me from the blog? As a business matter he had no choice. His contract required him to pull it. He could not persuade his contact at Scholastic to change his mind. Forced between two contractual breeches, economics required him to breach mine. As he approached that point of decision he began to reconsider the substantive merits of the matter.

I understand his business decision. There’s a moral element to all this, but in so far as Alexander Russo is concerned I’m prepared to set that aside. I think he made a bad business decision. Russo cultivated an “edgy” independent image. TWIE’s popularity is based on Russo. Taking my post down on Scholastic's orders rather than the merits undermines Russo’s “bad boy” personae. People might see him as someone who did not demonstrate independence when it mattered, and gave way to Rotherham’s charge without a fight. That image offers no competitive advantage to TWIE.

Next: on Tuttle SVC (http://www.tuttlesvc.org/) – Andrew Rotherham’s role or, the tip of an iceberg.

Ed Note: by Norm Scott

See part 1 in this series at Schools Matter:
Millot: Sound Decision or Censorship at TWIE? (I)

Millot put up a complete email communication transcript between he and Russo at:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26695687/Millot-Russo-Email-Communications-February-5-9-2010

Background information on this story and how I came to be involved at Ed Notes:

Oh What a Tangled Web: Millot, Russo and Rotherham Battle As Millot Charges Arne with Conflict of Interest

This story is more important to regular Ed Notes readers than might appear on the surface. It exposes fault lines in the relationship between the education business model supporters and profiteers and their ability to control editorial content telling the story. Millot tells us exactly where he is coming from and exposes the leash Scholastic has on Alexander Russo (who I met for the first time at the Gotham Schools party in December).

Ed Notes reported on Millot's story at TWIE on Dec. 3, 2009 exposing the gap between the Toch original report and what was published at the Ed Deform EdSector as I tried to connect a bunch of dots for readers of this blog:

School Closings, ATRs, Charters, Rubber Rooms Are All Snakes in the Same Basket


Millot and I may be on different sides of the street (many readers will ask why we need more lawyers commenting on education) but he is not necessarily a narrow ideologue (like I am). He has

"enormous skepticism in the new philanthropy’s keiretsu" and has "strong doubts about the financial viability of the organizations and models that have received their investment, the broad implications of their failing investment strategy for the kind of market in public school improvement I’ve worked for and – strongly related to my business assessment, the social implications of their top-down centralized management philosophy."

This excerpt is extremely interesting and shows where Millot is coming from:

"I proceeded to write a series of series on problems in the charter school markets the academic fraud of EdSectors CMOs report, Imagine Schools violation of state laws concerning charter a nonprofit governance, and the Massachusetts Board of Education’s abuse of the chartering process. All were pretty aggressive. I was under no illusion that opponents of charter schools, privatization, andEdsector would use them to advantage. But I’ve never thought that pretending bad actors don’t exist served a helpful role with the vast majority of people who have no made up their minds. Moreover, I don’t want a market dominated by bad actors, and I’m not going to sit on my hands and let it happen."

Well, we think they are mostly all bad actors no matter how benign they may appear, with the NYCDOE being the baddest actor of all. And, yes. Ed Notes, GEM and so many others who are "opponents of charter schools, privatization, and Edsector" and yes, as the infantry of The Resistance movement, will use this to our advantage as we are in hand-to-hand combat. But how can we not appreciate Millot when he says: I don’t want a market dominated by bad actors, and I’m not going to sit on my hands and let it happen."


[One interesting side panel to this story is how some vehement charter school parent supporters have been coming to us anti-charter activists in NYC with stories of horrible treatment of kids by charter school operators and want it exposed because they feel the charter school movement as a whole will be compromised.]


[Second interesting side panel is the contrast between how these discussions at the policy level differ from those at Ed Notes, GEM, ICE, etc. where the rubber meets the road as we battle charter school invasions on a daily basis. Our latest is over Girls Prep -look for my video, see the parent video on the side panel and see accounts of that Feb. 11 meeting and some interesting stats I just published on the GEM blog (Girls Prep Charter and District One: Who is at risk?) put together by parent activist Lisa Donlan (no, not all people opposed to charters are union flunkies).

Alexander Russo actually lives in Brooklyn and has the opportunity to do some real reporting by attending the numerous charter school and school closing hearings and PEP meetings. But now we have to ask: could he really report on what he sees and still keep his gig?]

Andrew Rotherham, who Millot will savage (I hope) in part 3, is a Democratic party ed deformer who worked in the Clinton administration. 'Nuff said for education progressives who have a shred of hope in the Democrats for true ed reform.

When all parts of this story are out I'll put up links in the sidebar. It might turn into a book, especially if we don't lose sight of the fact that Millot's original post that was pulled exposed Arne Duncan's conflict of interest. Are we heading to Duncangate, Arnegate? Andy(Rotherham)gate, Russogate? I hope old buddy Eduwonkette is following this trail and getting a few chuckles.

More blogger reactions here and here.