Parent Trigger in Adelanto, CA

How did the Parent Trigger law originate?  The Parent Trigger was first conceived by a LA-based organization called the Parent Revolution, founded by a charter school operator and funded by the Broad, Walton and Gates Foundations.  The legislation was introduced in California by then-State Senator Gloria Romero, who now heads the California branch of the pro-privatization organization, Democrats for Education Reform. ------ NYC Parents Blog (FAQ re the movie “Won’t Back Down” and the Parent Trigger)

With the publicity surrounding "Won't Back Down" parent trigger laws are in the news. This story from Adelanto Ca will prove to be a hot one. As Leonie points out above, these are not grassroots movements as depicted in the film, which turns it into science fiction. While I pointed out in my recent post that I at times have mixed feelings about local bureaucracies (Supporters of Parent Trigger Film "Won't Back Down" Come Under Attack), I found myself rooting for the Adelanto school board in this one.

UPDATE: Aug. 22, 10PM from Ravitch:

President of the Adelanto School Board Challenges “Parent Revolution”

A few facts about this one, again from Leonie:

operatives trained and paid by the Parent Revolution urged parents at the Desert Trails School in Adelanto CA to sign two different petitions: one calling for smaller classes and other positive reforms, the other demanding that the school be turned over to a charter operator.  After the organizers submitted only the charter petition to the authorities, nearly 100 parents asked to withdraw their signatures.  Yet a judge has ruled that parents could not rescind their signatures and the conversion to a charter school should go forward. Even Gloria Romero, the author of the Parent Trigger law, has criticized the organization’s tactics, and said that presenting Adelanto parents with two different petitions to sign was “needlessly confusing.” 

So when it turns out that enough parents were manipulated into signing a petition where they were asked if they wanted to lower class sizes but found out they were being used to trigger a charter and then wanted their names removed which would have untriggered the trigger, the judge ruled against them. But the school board may have done an end run around the push for the school to be replaced by a charter. From Charters and Choice blog

California 'Parent-Trigger' Effort Thrown Back Into Turmoil

A California school board has approved a plan to restructure a school at the center of a closely watched "parent-trigger" dispute, but it's not the plan that a group of parents wanted—and it's not the plan they say a judge ordered put in place.
The Adelanto, Calif., school board voted Friday to accept a petition circulated by a group of parents seeking to become the first in the country to use a parent-trigger law to overhaul an academically struggling school. But the panel rejected the parents' preferred option, which was to convert Desert Trails Elementary into a charter school, the board's president, Carlos Mendoza, told Education Week in an e-mail. The board instead decided to move forward with a form of "alternate governance," he said, which would result in a longer school day, improved technology and other changes to the school.
But whether that plan will ever take effect is anything but certain.
The Adelanto board's actions drew an immediate, angry reaction from the parents seeking to change the school, who said the panel has run afoul of the letter of an court decision issued by a judge last month, which in their view clearly calls for the creation of a charter.
"They've violated the plain language of the order of the court," said Ben Austin, the executive director of Parent Revolution, a group that has helped the parents with the trigger effort. "The district seems to want to hold onto power, no matter what. ... There is no ambiguity about the judge's order."

How nice to see Ben Austin vexed. He will go back to court to force the charter on parents who choose not to have a charter. Now note this big lie in the article to make it appear that parent triggers are a slam dunk without mentioning that Florida turned it down.

A growing number of states have either approved or considered parent-trigger laws, policies that typically allow parents to revamp the operations, leadership, and personnel at academically struggling schools, if a majority of parents agree to those changes. Lawmakers aren't the only ones drawn to the idea. A movie titled "Won't Back Down," which tells the story of a fictionalized attempt at a school takeover, will be released next month.

[Superintendent] Mendoza pointed to the language of the judge's order, saying that school board has done nothing to interfere with allowing the parents to begin sorting through charter school proposals. "We have never stopped them from soliciting applications," he wrote to Education Week. The board simply voted to pursue another option, he said.
"I believe that the alternative governance is closer to what the Desert Trails Parent Union [has] been claiming to want than a charter school," Mendoza argued. The parents "now have a choice," he said. "They can partner with the district through the alternate governance plan and transform the school or they can continue to partner with Parent Revolution to further rob our kids with lawsuits."
Austin, however, scoffed at the board's reasoning, saying the judge had been clear that the school is to be converted to a charter.

Ben Austin wants parent choice, as long as it's limited to charters.

The school board took an option that Leonie point to:

But are there other ways to provide better “choices” for parents?  There are many ways that districts can provide more and better choices within the public school system, by creating magnet schools and specialized schools that unlike charters, do not drain resources from public schools, privatize public buildings or take decisions out of voters’ hands. Why should a public school built with taxpayer funds be given to a private corporation just because 51% of current users signed a petition?  If a local firehouse was ineffective in putting out fires, or a police station in fighting crime, would we choose to hand these public services over to a private company, or would we demand that our elected leaders improve them?

Leonie gives us some more history:

The first time the “parent trigger” was tried, Parent Revolution sent operatives into Compton CA, to ask parents to sign a petition saying that their local elementary school should be turned into a charter school. Some parents who signed the petition later said they been misled,  the effort was mired in lawsuits and ultimately fizzled. 

What does the Parent Trigger law call for?  If 51% of parents at a school can be persuaded to sign a petition calling for any of a narrow set of options – either firing all the teaching staff, closing the school, or privatizing the school by turning it over to a charter operator, this must occur.  None of these options has any track record of success.

How did the Parent Trigger law originate?  The Parent Trigger was first conceived by a LA-based organization called the Parent Revolution, founded by a charter school operator and funded by the Broad, Walton and Gates Foundations.  The legislation was introduced in California by then-State Senator Gloria Romero, who now heads the California branch of the pro-privatization organization, Democrats for Education Reform.  

How can we fight back?  Last spring, Florida parent groups, including Parents Across America, banded together to fight Parent Trigger legislation that had been introduced in the state legislature. By holding rallies and press conferences, calling their elected representatives, and speaking out about how the Parent Trigger is a ruse devised by corporate reformers to benefit charter operators rather than children, Florida parents prevented the legislation from being passed. 

Parents Union support the movie

A website, developed by The Protea Group Inc. called Parents for "Won't Back Down" supports the movie. Website is sponsored by:

Connecticut Parents Union, New York City Parents Union, Ohio Parents Union & the Texas Parents Union

Website Developed & Administered by The Protea Group Inc.

If you follow the links you will find direct and indirect attack on Leonie Haimson and Parents Across America.

Gwen Samuel, President of the Connecticut Parents Union closes her press release with this statement where she accuses people opposing the movie with trying to bully parents.

So, again, I ask, what is the big fuss and why would anyone bully parents to not watch a movie that will inspire parents to be more active in their child’s educational journey?

Oh, la di da, it's only a movie - and I neglected to mention that the movie is backed by the very people attacking teachers, unions and public education. 

Really, who is doing the bullying here? 

Mr. Letgo is Excessed, by Zeno

Let's hope Zeno continues the series. Thanks for posting to
EXCESS'D - A Teacher Without a Room 

If you are an excessed teacher or know one, send him/her to gemnyc@gmail.com to be added to the listserve.

Part 1:
http://youtu.be/BTqid3sTttQ


Part 2:
http://youtu.be/ywkQ0C6NSVI

Supporters of Parent Trigger Film "Won't Back Down" Come Under Attack

Over the years, the teachers’ unions have indeed guarded tenure protections and last-in-first-out layoff practices to a zealous degree that could at times seem indifferent to the welfare of schoolchildren. “We bear a lot of responsibility for this,” Weingarten told me in a phone interview on Friday. “We were focused — as unions are — on fairness and not as much on quality.”  -- Frank Bruni on "Won't Back Down" in NY Times

There she goes again. Randi straddling the line instead of using an opportunity to educate the press and the public about what is really going on.

Given my history of frustration with the union and my own maverick tendencies, the idea of teachers and parents voting to overturn the bureaucracy is appealing. In fact, in the late 90s I went to Randi Weingarten and proposed the UFT set up a charter school support system for teachers to work with parents to take over NYC schools one school at a time saying, "The people running the schools are just awful and we will never make progress until we have some control of the system." She responded, "You're probably right, but how can we trust....." and she stopped there. I know she was thinking, "How can we trust just any teachers?"

I had been so frustrated at the joint union and district oppression in my district and if there were a genuine trigger movement I might have gone that way too. I want to stress right here that the film does show a teacher fighting back and I will see the film before saying it out and out sucks.

But we always have to put films like "Won't Back Down" in context. Who is backing it? The same "Waiting for Superman" gang. The parent trigger concept in the hands of the people pushing it is extremely dangerous. And of course the union is evil in the film. But then again how often to I feel that way from the other side of the fence about our own union after fighting the Unity machine for over 40 years?

I will give the film credit for waking up some of our colleagues to the dangers while our union leadership seems to be asleep at the wheel. Or worse, collaborating on the other side, but not collaborating enough according to DFER and right wingers. Which makes my point -- why collaborate at all and not go all out?

The Frank Bruni article in today's New York Time about "Won't Back Down" made some interesting points about  unions and how they are vilified for not being willing to give when in fact Randi has been the gift that keeps giving. My response to Bruni would be how tenure protects kids and how the alternative is so much worse --- why doesn't he touch on the states where there is no tenure or effective union? Why doesn't Randi hammer this home in every interview and every tweet? Because you know my feelings: she is a neo-liberal lawyer with serious ed deform tendencies, not a teacher.

Here is a comment on the Bruni piece from Leonie Haimson:

As usual, treats this as solely a battle between union and “reformers”, and interviews Micah Lasher and Joe Williams. Dreadful piece. Micah Lasher claims “Democratic executives say “‘I’ve devoted all the resources I can, why can’t I get better results with the resources I have?’” With the largest class sizes in 13 years? Go leave a comment and tweet him at @frankbruni; he also has a Facebook page. He writes: I invite you to visit my blog, follow me on Twitter at twitter.com/frankbruni and join me on Facebook. Please DO!
Teachers on the Defensive - NYTimes.com - http://goo.gl/LNo7l

Diane Ravitch on the Bruni column. Here's an excerpt:

I am not going to write anything substantive about the movie celebrating the so-called "parent trigger" until I have seen it.

But the stories about it continue to miss the point about  why parents and teachers think it is a corporate-conceived and corporate-driven idea, for the benefit of corporate charter chains. Why not mention the Florida parents' fight to stop this so-called "parent empowerment"? If it really empowered parents, why did parents oppose it?

Here is the latest example. Frank Bruni, usually a thoughtful writer, has an article in today's New York Times. He sees the movie as part of the ongoing (and at least partially justified) critique of teachers unions. He never mentions that the two states that enthusiastically endorsed parent trigger laws (after California did it first, during the Schwarzenegger years), are right-to-work states, Texas and Mississippi. Nor did he mention the role of the rightwing group ALEC in promoting the trigger idea as a way to hasten the privatization of public education.

Diane links to another critique by Larry Ferlazzo, a prolific blogger and Sacramento teacher, calls Williams on his line about finding and rewarding the best teachers.

More from Diane: A Parent’s Letter to Frank Bruni of the New York Times
--------

Save Our Schools Takes a Stand

Here is the 6 page document they produced regarding the film and the Teachers Rock concert. You can download it here.

Press Release Teachers Rock Documents

--------

Mona Davids jumps on the movie bandwagon

In this war we are in those who try to straddle the line don't make friends on either side. See one Randi Weingarten. Thus, some activists in NYC were disappointed to learn that Mona Davids of the NYC Parents Union has jumped on the bandwagon with her support of the film. The press release from Parents Unions in 4 states used the ed deform buzz words (adults and children to define which side you are on:

 putting aside politics and adult self-interests by putting children first

Words that could come right from the pages of Joel Klein and Michelle Rhee.

Tne NYC Parent Union press release with links to the movie FB and Twitter feeds. (Note the WBD FB page is censoring comments.)

Now, Mona has been an ally over the past few years and had a role in our film criticizing charters despite her being a charter supporter. I can't even tell you how much help she was and she has taken flack for her support of the film.

She had gotten off to a pretty bad start when I first met her in the summer and fall of 2009 when she supported Joel Klein and then showed up from her Bronx home at a hearing at PS 15 over PAVE charter school in Red Hook Brooklyn to charge the teachers at the school with being interlopers from outside the neighborhood. I dubbed her "Moaning Mona." Some of the videos I shot were pretty funny.

But Mona began reaching out early in 2010 and over the years everyone made nice despite differences and I began to refer to her as "Magnificent Mona." And she has been a stalwart lining up with anti-corporate ed deformers on many issues, including helping lead the assault on the Cathie Black chancellor case.

Now I should point out that Mona has been pushing her own version of a parent trigger law here in NY State, which has caused some people to take issue with. But as I say, in the overall context of her work, many of us didn't get our underwear in a knot over it.

But her signing onto the film did bother me and some others. I feel that by supporting this film at this time of a general assault on unions and public education by the right, Mona's support for the film puts her in the public perception on the wrong side of the line. Here is a comment from someone associated with the national Save Our Schools Movement -- a person who doesn't know Mona or her work:

We MUST do all we can to fight this. Note the name of the group, "Parent's Union." Someone said at at our meeting that the right wing is taking over our terminology, so no one knows who is on what side.

Mona's hard work being branded by someone in SOS as a right wing front group which is not true. Another parent wrote:

Has she suddenly flipped sides? She quite publicly tweeted her thanks to Campbell Brown as well.

That is the danger Mona faces in linking the NYC Parents Union with a film being pushed by the right wing, DFER and all the other ed deformers. Emails have been flying around about this behind the scenes and there is a renewed wariness about Mona and her motives. I'll wait and see and give her the benefit of the doubt, for now. It might be fun to see her at the premiere of the film on Sept. 28 if we manage to hold some protest rally over the message of the film.

Mona and I had a bit of a testy interchange yesterday over her support for the film after I asked her if "Moaning Mona" was returning. She said she wanted people to see the film and make up their own minds. Hey, Diane Ravitch is also saying she won't comment on the film until she sees it. But I pointed out this point from her press release:

The “Won’t Back Down” movie displays a beautiful partnership between parents, teachers and the community to improve a low performing school.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

FAQ re the movie “Won’t Back Down” and the Parent Trigger 

 

Did CNN's Randi Kaye Ask Rhee About the DC Cheating Scandal Coverup Under Her Watch?

[Randi Kaye] and her researchers are totally uninformed. And they feed their uninformed views to the American public. This is what is frightening! --- Diane Ravitch

Biased journalism 101

See the Kaye/Rhee Interview. What any person who considers herself a journalist would ask when Rhee brought up the term "effective" teacher. Define an effective teacher? Then didn't that definition result in a major cheating scandal under your watch as head of DC schools? What about the level of alienation of people that led to the mayor losing the election due to the impact of your policies? That was the type of interview Randi Kaye did with Ravich while letting Rhee off the hook.

I thought Diane had an opening when talking about the failures of merit pay and the testing used to measure it by pointing to the Rhee regime in DC and how it lead to a cheating scandal that was covered up (as even a former Rhee fan Jay Matthews points to).

See my last post earlier in the day: Biased CNN's Randi Kaye Does Not Deserve Merit Pay

And Diane Ravitch's follow-up post today: What Readers Said About CNN and Randi Kaye

I went to CNN assuming I was invited to express my differences with Rhee, who gets far more airtime than I to present her agenda of attacking US education, smearing teachers, calling for an end to tenure and seniority, and demanding merit pay, charter schools, vouchers, for-profit charter schools, for-profit virtual schools, and more testing.
But there was no discussion of my views, no opportunity to present them. Instead I faced a series of loaded questions intended to put me on the defensive (some of the worst were left out of the televised version). They were “gotcha” questions. What do you say to this? And what about that?

Last year at Education Nation, another biased reporter, Raheema Ellis, had Rhee on a panel with a former Atlanta school board member but only talked about the Atlanta cheating scandal. I got to the mic and asked Ellis why she was letting Rhee off the hook.

Rhee almost choked. One of the fun moments although all too brief.

Biased CNN's Randi Kaye Does Not Deserve Merit Pay

[Randi Kaye's) question was nonsensical and made CNN look stupid. Journalists have an audience in millions. That's why US public is so misinformed. Shame on CNN. There was no effort to elicit my views, only a determination to prove me wrong and to assert that US education is terrible.
... Diane Ravitch on her appearance on the CNN Interview: What They Dropped Out

... who needs to read about lack of homework preceding interview.- Tweet from Arthur Goldstein regarding @RandiKaye interview.

Compare how Randi Kaye questioned Diane Ravitch (I can't find the video yet) with her gentle interview where she allowed a grotesque-looking Michelle Rhee to bloviate.

Perdido Street School posted this before the interview but he was totally right:

 CNN Does "Gotcha" Interview With Ravitch After Softball Interview With Michelle Rhee (UPDATED)

Diane Ravitch posts the following:

I taped the interview a few minutes ago.

It airs tomorrow at 9-10 am EST.

It was a gotcha session.

This is the letter I sent to my contact at CNN.

This was one of the most biased interviews I have ever done, and I have done many.
Randi Kaye asked me about NAEP scale scores, which was technically a very dumb question, and I was stunned.
She thinks that a scale score of 250 on a 500 point scale is a failing grade, but a scale score is not a grade at all.
It’s a trend line.
She asserted that the scale scores are a failing grade for the nation.
That is like saying that someone who scores a 600 on the SAT is a C student, because it is only 75% of 800. But that’s wrong.
The scale is a technical measure. It is not a grade, period.
Then she asked me about an issue in Michigan, which fortunately, I had written about. But it was clear she was trying to blindside me.
The point of her question was to blame teachers, and I refused to be pushed into her trap.
Then she read two hostile comments about my CNN post and asked for my response.
Was that supposed to be a balanced or fair interview?
There was no effort to elicit my views, only a determination to prove me wrong and to assert that US education is terrible.
Shame on CNN.

I have already called and expressed my disgust that CNN did a hit piece on Ravitch after doing a softball interview with Rhee.

I also noted that since CNN's ratings are in the toilet and nobody really watches the channel anymore, if Ms. Ravitch goes on another news network and responds to the CNN attack, more people will hear and see her anyway.

You can leave feedback about Randi Kaye, the CNN "journalist" who conducted the attack interview here:

http://www.cnn.com/feedback/#cnn_FBKCNNTV

You can call and leave feedback here about the interview verbally here: 404.827.1500 option 1. That's the "News Tip" line, but they'll transfer you.

Shame on CNN indeed.

Some tweets after the interview:

Arthur Goldstein ‏@TeacherArthurG

At @CNN, since they know nothing about merit pay, they let Rhee blather on about it, and are shocked when @DianeRavitch calls them on it.

1h Diane Ravitch ‏@DianeRavitch

@TeacherArthurG @CNN Share your comments with @randikaye

53m Arthur Goldstein ‏@TeacherArthurG

@DianeRavitch Over at @CNN, @RandiKaye is shocked and stunned that an electronics industry lobbying group supports outsourcing.

Chicago teachers authorize strike! Come build solidarity & learn about the struggle

UPDATE: 10AM




http://youtu.be/IxVYFm2g9CM

The Chicago Teachers Union is currently on the front lines of a fight to defend public education. On one side the 30,000 members of the CTU have called for a contract that includes fair compensation, meaningful job security for qualified teachers, smaller class sizes and a better school day with Art, Music, World Language and appropriate staffing levels to help our neediest students.

On the other side, the Chicago Board of Education—which is managed by out of town reformers and Broad Foundation hires with little or no Chicago public school experience—has pushed to add two weeks to the school year and 85 minutes to the school day, eliminate pay increases for seniority, evaluate teachers based on student test scores, and slash many other rights.

Teachers, parents and community supporters in Chicago have fought valiantly—marching, filling auditoriums at hearings and parent meetings, even occupying a school and taking over a school board meeting. Most recently, 98 percent of our members voted to authorize a strike. But now we find ourselves facing new opponents—national education privatizers, backed by some of the nation's wealthiest people. They are running radio ads, increasing press attacks, and mounting a PR campaign to discredit the CTU and the benefits of public education.

From George Schmidt

The signs are being printed, and anyone who thinks Chicago's Bullies-In-Chief are going to settle a reasonable union contract for the city's teachers without a serious strike have no experiences with facing down real bullies. Rahm and the billionaires backing him (the same people who made sure he "earned" $18 million during his years as what he called "Relationship Banking") hate unions (unless we are on our knees in company unions) and still feel they can manipulate the media and the "messaging" against the city's teachers and real public schools.

A discussion featuring a presentation by a Chicago Teachers Union member

Thursday, August 23rd

6:30 p.m.

at The Murphy Institute

25 West 43rd Street, between 5th and 6th avenues

18th Floor, Room C/D

Public schools, teachers and their unions are under attack throughout the country.  The drive to privatize our public schools and strip away teacher protections is only accelerating.   In Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emanuel canceled a promised 4% pay raise to Chicago teachers and proposed lengthening the school day by 20% with only a 2% raise.  In addition, Emanuel proposes implementing a merit pay system for teachers--a similar system in Baltimore has led to 60% of teachers receiving unsatisfactory ratings.  In response, the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) has refused to back down and has shown the power of solidarity, holding large rallies and forging alliances with community members.  The CTU is demanding smaller class sizes, fair pay and a diverse and fulfilling curriculum for Chicago students.  This spring, 90% of all CTU members voted to authorize a strike.  98% of those voting authorized a strike.   

The CTU's campaign has met with some initial success.  Emanuel recently agreed to hire almost 500 teachers, mostly arts, PE and enrichment teachers.  These teachers will be hired from a pool of laid-off, experienced teachers.  The result is that a longer school day will not force teachers to work longer and harder with no compensation.

While this victory is inspiring, the CTU's strike preparations continue, as there has been no agreement on teacher pay, class sizes, merit pay and other important issues.  It is urgent that teachers, parents and community members show our solidarity with CTU.  We also have a lot to learn from CTU's struggle.

Come hear a presentation by a CTU member and help organize solidarity for the Chicago teachers here in NYC!

Stand with CTU!

Sponsored by (list in formation):  Movement of Rank and File Educators, Black New Yorkers for Educational Excellence, Coalition for Public Education, Grassroots Education Movement (GEM), Labor Notes, New York Collective of Radical Educators (NYCoRE), New York City Labor Against the War, OWS Labor Outreach Committee, Independent Community of Educators (ICE).

Contact nycctusolidarity@gmail.com to help organize the event or to co-sponsor

Albert Shanker on Merit Pay

Shanker says some interesting and contradictory things in these statements. I raise the issue here to support my theme that in any ways Randi Weingarten has not shifted the position of the AFT/UFT far from where Shanker was coming from, though later in this post you will see Shanker say something that you won't hear from Weingarten.

Meet the Press, May, 1983

Shanker said he was urging all teachers to keep "an open mind" about merit pay. He praised elements of the plan pro-posed by Tennessee Gov. Lamar Alexander that was blocked by strenuous lobbying by the NEA's state affiliate. Shanker said Alexander's plan would provide "very large rewards" to a large number of Tennessee teachers, who would have a voice in determining who got the bonus pay. He said the plan had some shortcomings, but "meets many of the objections which teachers traditionally have raised."

The MacNeil/Lehrer Report, March 30, 1982

MacNEIL: Are you saying that a teacher cannot by himself or herself make himself better by an act of will in order to gain more pay?

Mr. SHANKER: That's right. If you pay me more money I will not sing any better than I usually sing, and whenever I sing I sing as well as I can, and whenever I teach I teach as well as I can.

MacNEIL: Well, why, if extra pay is an incentive for good performance everywhere else in the American system, should it not be for teachers?

Mr. SHANKER: Well, there are some things where extra pay is an incentive and works, and there are other fields -- for instance, I doubt very much that if you gave a soldier in the middle of a battle more money that that soldier would do any better. And I don't think anybody has ever proposed it. I think that people in battle generally fight as well as they can because they're fighting for their own lives. And I think a teacher in a classroom is fighting for his or her self respect, professional life, and that the -- I would add one other thing. You know, I don't know of any other field where people get punished for being satisfactory, and that's part of this proposal. If you're satisfactory you're punished. I also feel that, you know, whether you're viewed as being satisfactory or superior largely depends on how you stand in relationship or in comparison to your colleagues. And if I'm in a school, and if I know that my evaluation and rating is going to depend on not only how well I do, but [how] everyone else in that school does, I'm not going to help other teachers if I have some professional talents. Instead of cooperating with my colleagues and helping them solve prob-lems, the first thing I'm going to think of is, "Gee, if they've got this same ability that I do, I'm not going to look like I'm superior, because they all have it." So one of the things that this sets up is, instead of setting up a cooperative and mutu-ally supportive atmosphere, it sets up very destructive competition.

This discussion came out of an email from James Boutin, our former NYC colleague now working in Seattle.

Hi NYCers,

It seems we have something similar to E4E sprouting out here in Seattle. The guy below says Al Shanker endorsed merit pay. Anyone know if this is true?

Teachers United is an interesting development to me. They work with Stand for Children, support charters and merit pay, tell stories about how their TFA members raised test scores dramatically at all the schools they ever worked at, and say they support the Washington Education Association and people in the WEA while suggesting that teachers consider working outside the union to get things done....

http://crosscut.com/2012/06/21/k-12/109245/teachers-

James Boutin

Public School Teacher, www.anurbanteacherseducation.


Pat Dobosz suggested some sites:

Ed Notes Online: Merit Pay, the UFT, TJC, and NCLB

Shanker Blog » Revisiting The Merits Of Merit Pay

What Albert Shanker Said About Merit Pay « Diane Ravitch's blog

Jeff Kaufman found some interesting items

Like many issues Shanker’s views on merit pay were nuanced and at times appeared contradictory. I have attached two articles (SEE PDFs BELOW). One, a transcript from the MacNeil Lehrer News Report in 1982 seems to be emphatic in his opposition to merit pay and the second article is about an appearance less than a year later on Meet the Press (but after a then Tenn. Gov Alexander proposal to teacher distributed merit pay) in which he speaks in favor. I have not reviewed hundreds of other statements and articles he is either quoted or wrote about this issue but I am sure there are more nuanced positions in there.

John Lawhead followed up with:

Shanker's openness to merit pay in May '83 followed his endorsement of the Nation at Risk report which was released a month before.  Merit pay was one of its recommendations.  In supporting the report he reversed himself on a number of issues.

In the Kahlenberg biography Sandra Feldman is quoted saying, "We all had this visceral reaction to it. You know, 'This is horrible.  They're attacking teachers.'  Shanker's shift shocked everyone.  He obviously didn't bother waiting for consensus from the rest of the AFT leadership.  For him it didn't work that way.

Here are the pdfs from 30 years ago. Wow. Really interesting stuff. Thanks Jeff.

The MacNeil/Lehrer Report, March 30, 1982
Meet the Press, The Associated Press, May 29, 1983

Here is something Shanker said that some might wish Weingarten/Mulgrew would repeat:

Shanker, asked if his union would defend incompetent teachers against firing, said, "We'd defend them, but we defend murderers in our society, too, and rapists and everybody else. The fact is that you're innocent until proven guilty."

Reagan's Attacks Hurt Teaching Profession, Meet the Press, Al Shanker


Grading Teachers the MacNeilLehrer Report M

Today- Change the Stakes Meeting Plus Some Facts

UPDATE: 7PM - I'm sitting at the meeting for the past 2 hours with over 20 teachers, parents, college teachers, researchers and even some kids. On an Friday in August. And every minute of the meeting has been so rich and enlightening. These meetings will continue the 3rd Friday of every month. Next: Sept. 21, 5:30PM at CUNY.

Change the Stake, an offshoot of the  Grassroots Education Movement, has become one of the few true parent/teacher groups that I know of. We have a full agenda today and I will update people on the status of our next film about high stakes testing.

Friday, August 17th, 5 PM SHARP (everyone welcome to arrive at 4:30 for pre-meeting mingling)

Room 5414 CUNY Grad Center, 5th Ave. between 34th and 35th Streets

PLEASE BRING ID TO ENTER THE BUILDING

We have tentatively scheduled a separate meeting on Tuesday, September 4th to specifically discuss the Opt Out experience of last school year, and think strategically about the Opt Out strategy for the coming year.

===

Pat D writes:

Here is a good article to read.  Kohn speaks about boycotting tests as wellas why we should be against them and what we can do. Fighting the Tests by Alfie Kohn

Some Statistics:

... a recent poll in Texas which showed that only 27% of teachers in Texas felt that increased test scores reflected increased learning and higher quality teaching. 85% of teachers said that they neglected subjects not covered by the TAAS exam.

Senator Paul Wellstone Speech on High-Stakes Testing: http://www.wpaag.org/

WellstoneHighStakesTests.htm

The following are from:

Correlations: Pass Rates and Poverty Rates « GFBrandenburg's Blog

 Janine follows:

The link to Sen. Wellstone's speech isn't connecting, (maybe you must be a member?) but lead me to seek it out here: 
http://www.wpaag.org/

WellstoneHighStakesTests.htm

The site that (likely once) had the post is an organization I've never heard of and maybe we should be reaching out to them, since (unless funded by those who are only pretending to be for children), seem to hold the values we also hold:  http://www.
educationrevolution.org/

Though I was not familiar with Sen. Wellstone's perspective on most things, I always thought his death was questionable.  After reading this, I'm even more suspicious......What a loss to this cause.  For those who look further into things like this:  http://www.snowshoefilms.com/
wellstone.html


=======

Walcott With Tenure Numbers

We'll have more comments on the tenure story since our last post (read it and check out the comments). Does the UFT Wish Tenure Would Go Away While Hoping the Taylor Law Stays for a Lifetime?

SCHOOLS CHANCELLOR DENNIS M. WALCOTT ANNOUNCES RESULTS OF TEACHER TENURE DECISIONS

For the Second Year in a Row, More Rigorous Standards Raise the Bar for Tenure

55 Percent of This Year’s Eligible Teachers Were Granted Tenure, Compared to 97% in 2007

Schools Chancellor Dennis M. Walcott today announced that 55 percent of eligible teachers were awarded tenure this year—maintaining the more rigorous standards developed for the 2010-11 school year. The Department of Education’s new approach to teacher tenure raises the bar by asking principals to provide detailed evidence to support their tenure recommendations.

“I’d like to congratulate the teachers who were granted tenure this year, and commend principals who are demanding higher standards. Receiving tenure is no longer an automatic right, and our new approach ensures that teachers who are granted tenure have earned it,” said Chancellor Walcott. “But our work is not done. We must improve the tenure process even further, and a teacher evaluation system will do just that and ensure our children are taught by the best.”

Under state law, a teacher who has completed his or her “probationary period,” or first three years of teaching, is eligible for tenure review. The number of eligible teachers decreased by 24 percent this year from 5,209 to 3,954 because fewer teachers were hired the past few years. Of the eligible teachers:

·         55% of teachers had their tenure decisions approved this year, compared to 97% in 2007 

·         42% of teachers had their tenure decision extended this year, compared to 2% in 2007

·         3% of teachers had their tenure decisions denied, compared to 1% in 2007

Of the teachers who received extensions last year:

·         42% received tenure this year

·         35% received another extension

·         16% were denied tenure or left the system

·         7% were not included for review this year due to service, license or assignment changes

Principals must support their tenure recommendations with evidence in three categories: teacher practice, evidence of student learning and contributions to the school community. For each of these categories, teachers are rated on a four-point scale: ineffective, developing, effective or highly effective. Principals collect data from classroom observations, quality of student work, progress on state assessments, attendance, and student and parent feedback, among other measures. Special consideration is given to gains demonstrated with high-need populations, including students with disabilities, English Language Learners, and students who are over-age and under-credited. 

Come picket CBS Friday morning!

Save Our Schools is inviting you to picket in front of the CBS Broadcast Studio at 6:30 AM tomorrow (Friday).

Come picket CBS Friday morning!

On Tuesday, August 14 a Concert called TEACHERS ROCK, presented by Walmart & promoting the movie “Won’t Back Down” was held in LA: with appearances from Carrie Underwood, Meryl Streep, Jennifer Garner, Matthew Morrison, Foo Fighters’ Dave Grohl, Usher, Maroon 5’s Adam Levine and others. On Friday, August 17 the concert will be aired on CBS.

The movie itself, “Won’t Back Down,” will premiere September 28. This film already has sparked much controversy. Developed by the producers of "Waiting for Superman," it gives a fictional account of parent trigger laws, and continues to attack public school systems.
The concert also supports Teach for America –which seems to be doing all it can to undermine professional teachers. Lets speak up for good public schools with well prepared teachers who are treated as professionals.

Come to 524 W. 57th Street between 10th and 11th Avenues Friday, August 17, at 6:30 AM to picket outside CBS's Morning Show at the CBS Broadcast Studio, Bring signs, pamphlets, etc. We will have a flier to pass out.

If you can, let me know if you plan to come, but show up anyhow.
--- --- ---
Another protest - NYGPS will hold a "Fat Cat Tour" in Midtown where they'll go to offices of the main funders of Students First NY on Tuesday @ 9:30, meet on 66 ST. and 2nd Ave. Information from Julian@aqeny.org.

Does the UFT Wish Tenure Would Go Away While Hoping the Taylor Law Stays for a Lifetime?

New York’s Taylor Law banning and penalizing public worker strikes violates fundamental workers’ rights protected by international law. -- ILO

If you start digging into the UFT response, or lack thereof, on the tenure issue, they want tenure to go away so they don't have to answer for it...

Would UFT leaders be happy if we had the right to strike like teachers in Chicago despite the limitations? What do you think? Let me try to connect a few dots.

There is an interesting article on tenure and the politics behind granting, not granting, extending, etc. at Gotham Schools:

Amid tenure crackdown, some targeted teachers get good news

Making tenure go away

It is worth reading along with some of the comments. Watching the behavior of the UFT/AFT leadership based on lots of anecdotal evidence and some observations I added the comment below which I expanded into a general analysis of the motivations behind the actions of UFT/AFT/NYSUT complex. Before going to the analysis there are a few points to make about the tenure issue.

First, meet any untenured teacher and the concept of getting tenure is absolutely on their minds -- except if you run across a TFA or E4E slug on the way out of teaching. I met quite a few at the Gotham party yesterday and that fact was reaffirmed.

Secondly, I want to tell a brief story about a UFT DA I attended last spring where Mulgrew was asked what to do if a teacher keeps getting tenure extended year after year -- like a 3rd time. His response: let us know. Too bad the person asking the question didn't follow up with "But if we let you know what will you do about it." Oh, I know the answer: We'll look into it. OK, after you look into it what will you do?

In fact, I believe the UFT wants tenure to go away as an issue and would breathe a sigh of relief if the politicians took it away while they put up a feeble fight (see New Jersey, Cleveland, and the rest of the AFT sell-out tour).

In fact the more you dig the more you find all sorts of revised unwritten tenure issues that have come up that the UFT is ignoring. Like teachers who transfer to a new school in their 3rd year are told that they can't get tenure because they have to work under the principal for 2 years. Or teachers who switch from middle school to high school have to go through some sort of retenuring process. And of course the big enchilada, principals who want to show their bosses how tough  they are --- like how does it look if 100% of your teachers get tenure even if they are all John Dewey? And finally, the denial of tenure to teachers at schools branded as failures, the main point of the Gotham article. In other words, the entire process of not granting tenure for political and not educational reasons.

Send me any info you find on any UFT response or comments on these issues. Is this the fear of Campbell Brown-like attacks operating?

You know this is reminding me of what was done in NYC during the 1930's depression when they had 2 classes of teachers, regulars and permanent subs who made less money and had less rights -- they found all sorts of ways to keep people in the permanent sub category. And I believe the denial of tenure, possibly year after year is returning us to those years.

Taylor Law outlawing strikes takes union leaders off the hook

This is from an interesting article in the Labor Press about an International Labor Organization ruling:

A November 2011 International Labor Organization decision ruled, after the Transport Workers Union Local 100 filed a complaint with the ILO in November 2009 after the union struck in December 2005 and was heavily fined, that New York’s Taylor Law banning and penalizing public worker strikes violates fundamental workers’ rights protected by international law. With 200,000 city public workers without contracts, in some cases over five years, the ILO decision would seem to have presented the city’s public sector unions the economic leverage they have desperately needed to win new contracts. ...... However, since the November 2011 ILO decision regarding the TWU’s complaints ... there hasn’t been a unified response from the city’s public unions, although 200,000 members are working without contracts.

What does that tell you about our labor leaders?

Here was my comment at Gotham:

I believe if you start digging into the UFT response, or lack thereof, on the tenure issue, they want tenure to go away so they don't have to answer for it ala Campbell Brown attacks, etc. But if they are too open about it they face some wrath from the members. So in the ideal world of the UFT, the politicians take it away and they say, "See, it wasn't out fault we just have to give more money to COPE to elect OUR politicians," which of course they know they never will but it takes them off the hook. This is part of the consistency of the UFT/AFT/NYSUT policy -- try to appear as one thing to the members but as another to the rest of the world.

Thus the policy of pushing collaboration because the alternative would be to engage in a war which given the way they operate internally (lack of democracy, total top-down, lack of engagement of the members) they cannot win. (Vs Chicago TU which has mobilized its membership to engage in the war). Why won't they do what Chicago TU has done? You can only mobilize people effectively if they feel they have a say in union policy and the ability to influence it. Giving people such a say is a bigger threat to the union/Unity Caucus leadership than the ed deformers. Thus the support for charter schools and even co-locations in the hope that they can organize teachers in charters even if a small percentage. (See: Exposing UFT/Charter Connections as UFT Supports Co-location)

They know that in the long run the teachers unions without a fight will suffer slow strangulation but given that within the straight jacket of their political framework they are helpless to stop it, at least the people at the top can exist for quite a while and if they make the proper deals with ed deformers (Gates, Broad, etc) they might be able to keep the shell of a union going with them at the top. Ed deformers are not unified. The right wing Republicans want to kill the unions and the leadership completely while the Dem/liberal deformers (Obama, Bloomberg, Gates) see the usefulness to them of keeping the shell and as long as the union gives them pieces of what they want and keeps giving they will support the existence of the current leadership. That is why Chicago is such a massive threat to the entire arrangement between the unions and the Dem deformers.

================
The opinions expressed on EdNotesOnline are solely those of Norm Scott and are not to be taken as official positions (though Unity Caucus/New Action slugs will try to paint them that way) of any of the groups or organizations Norm works with: ICE, GEM, MORE, Change the Stakes, NYCORE, FIRST Lego League NYC, Rockaway Theatre Co., Active Aging, The Wave, Aliens on Earth, etc.

How Dare Ryan and Romney Claim They Made it on Their Own?

Maureen Dowd really nails Paul Ryan in today's NY Times:

When Cruelty Is Cute

I won't even get into the Ayn Rand (pro abortion, atheist, every man and woman for themselves) stuff. Ryan is already taking a beating (some are saying that ultimately he is a worse choice than Sarah Palin who someone on NPR said, "didn't read while Ryan did read Rand"). This is what set me off:

Like Mitt Romney, Ryan truly believes he made it on his own, so everyone else can, too. He shrugs off the advantage of starting as the white guy from an affluent family, able to breeze into a summer internship for a Wisconsin Republican senator as a college student.

Only 16 and the youngest of four when he discovered his lawyer dad dead in bed from a heart attack at 55, Ryan had to grow up fast.

I read this to my wife and we looked at each other and said, "WE truly made it on our own, not Mitt or Ryan." Well, let me qualify that.

My wife has Ryan beat by 2 years with the death of her father when she was 14. She didn't just find him dead, she saw him die in front of her. He was 47 and owned a small grocery on Rogers Ave. My wife's brother was 11 at the time and he grew up right then and there. When I met him when he was about 17 he could do just about anything. And still can. The family was left with little and mom had to go to work.

Both my wife's parents graduated from high school.

My parents parents barely went to school. My mom came over form Europe in 1920 at the age of 15 and went to work right away in the garment industry. My dad who was born here in 1918 (yes my mom was a cougar) had a few accidents as a kid which left him blind in one eye and possible slightly brain damaged and never felt he could concentrate in school. He dropped out in the 8th or 9th grade. He too went to work in the garment industry as a presser and was a union member -- the ILGWU. I was proud when he was a picket captain during a strike.

As an only child born to my mom when she was 40 I received way more attention than I wanted or needed. But school for my mom was at the top of the list despite being barely able to read or write (she was embarrassed to go into a bank to sign her name because she couldn't). She was up there every open school night arguing my case. I resented her interference. When I had reports to do even as early as the 4th grade we were off to the library. I remember we all spend one entire Saturday at the main Grand Army Plaza branch where my dad copied parts of the entire encyclopedia for me to take home and work from.

Regular visits to the Schenectady and East Pkwy branch where I took out books galore -- my home didn't have any books  -- my parents I do not think ever read a book. My school library at George Gershwin JHS (now to be closed) was a haven on Fridays after lunch with ancient Miss Gouldsmith.

My wife has a BA and MA and I have a BA and MA in ed and in computer science. My wife was highly successful as a hospital admin and made very good money managing the affairs of a corporate entity there.

Yes, we sort of made it on our own.. But we really didn't. With parents of very modest means we still couldn't have done it without them. So how dare Mitt and Paul even suggest they made it on their own. All of us would never have made it without family support. In my almost 40 years in the school system I met many wonderful families and also many struggling families (many of whom were also wonderful) but with nowhere the resources and support my wife and I received.

Really, how dare Mitt and Paul even suggest that these people should make it on their own like they did.

Below is Dowd's full piece.

Exposing UFT/Charter Connections as UFT Supports Co-location

Union [UFT] officials said they would not object to Waronker’s school receiving public space if the building offered has enough room and the existing schools do not object to getting a new neighbor.

Aside from the issue of charter expansion and the potential of a contentious co-location battle, this seems to me to be more experimentation on poor kids in the name of "innovation." What parent and/or teacher wouldn't prefer to have their kid in a class of 15 -- a proven model for success -- rather than in a class of 60? Where is the evidence that this works at all? I encourage people to read this NYT article: New American Academy in Brooklyn Is an Experiment in Class Size - http://goo.gl/Fk7tD ----- Leonie Haimson

What kind of union helps an employer "work around the union contract?" I guess a union that only cares about keeping the dues money coming in, while the contract is gutted and public schools dismantled. Thank you, Randi Weingarten, for showing the world what employer-union collaboration really means. Absolutely, utterly, beyond disgraceful, and a clear demonstration of how the AFT/UFT leadership is captive to the premises and practice of ed deform. --- Michael Fiorillo

Waronker would leave the New American Academy for the charter school, where he would be headmaster, according to the plan, a move that would allow him potentially to earn more than he does as a district principal. 

Children First, of course. Don't get me wrong, I actually find some of Waronker's ideas appealing. So why doesn't he stay in one school and see them through?

But the bullet for me here is that the UFT actually comes out for colocation "if there's enough space" --- like who decides, the DOE scuzzballs --- or "if the school agrees". What exactly does that mean? The school is the principal who works for the DOE and if he/she doesn't agree - ZAPPO.

Can the UFT be any more hypocritical?

Gotham Schools has done a great job in this article of exposing the fault lines and semi-hidden agenda of the UFT and their pal Shimon Waronker, the famous Hassidic who gets more press than Moses. (New York Times columnist David Brooks praised the school in a piece this spring.)

What does it tell you that Waronker is praised by ed-idiot Brooks, the UFT and Joel Klein who said in 2008 “If I could clone Shimon Waronker, I would do that immediately."

First Waronker was a principal of MS 22. But that was not enough to stay in a school and build it as part of the community. Four years and out. And the latest news is not good:

M.S. 22 grew safer under Waronker’s watch, which lasted from 2004 to 2008, but performance continued to lag. This year, it wound up on the city’s list of schools to overhaul.)

Looks like Shimon got out before he could be branded a failed principal. Just like failed CEOs keep moving in front of the dust storm.

Of course he needs to run a school with a different idea so he gets one in Brooklyn. After only 2 years he needs another one despite the fact his

"school also does not have a track record of success yet. Last year, its oldest students were in second grade, so the school has no state test scores to boast." 

But why wait to find out if it works? Both he and the UFT want to replicate something that may be a total failure, as Leonie points out in this comment on the Gotham site:

Aside from the issue of charter expansion and the potential of a contentious co-location battle, this seems to me to be more experimentation on poor kids in the name of "innovation."  What parent and/or teacher wouldn't prefer to have their kid in a class of 15 -- a proven model for success -- rather than in a class of 60?  Where is the evidence that this works at all?  I encourage people to read this NYT article: New American Academy in Brooklyn Is an Experiment in Class Size - http://goo.gl/Fk7tD

He asks the DOE and since the UFT is a partner he is told to cool it. So he and his pals at the UFT do an end run.

Really, you have to read every word and every comment of this article. It is so good I may actually give Gotham a contribution tomorrow at their party (though I may eat and drink it all away.)

In a first, district school is aiming to expand as a charter school

Read it all but let me extract the juicy UFT parts:

Waronker’s application has the support of the United Federation of Teachers, which was involved in the New American Academy’s creation but has had a contentious relationship with the city’s charter sector. Leo Casey, a UFT official who is departing to lead a union-affiliated education research institute in Washington, D.C., is a founding board member. 

This paragraph says it all about what the UFT/AFT is all about:

The UFT was integral in paving the way for the New American Academy to open in the first place. It worked with the city to sign off on a special contract that allows teachers to have larger classes, work longer hours, and climb a career ladder that carries extra pay.

But union leaders have never lent themselves to charter schools’ boards, other than the two charter schools it operates and one that former UFT President Randi Weingarten supported because it was trying to pioneer a new model of charter-union collaboration, Casey said Waronker’s school has long impressed him. Its master teacher model, where high-paid, highly trained teachers serve as mentors to three others, is the best in any city school, he said.

You know, master teachers like E4E's Lori Wheal.

“At a time when everybody talks about innovation and falls back onto the most traditional modes of teaching, they really are doing it,” Casey said. “The school is based on the notion that you have to empower the teachers.”

Teachers are empowered to have larger class sizes, work longer hours and climb a career ladder (read: merit pay).

When the teachers union said it would help [Waronker] work around the union contract to set up some of the school’s special features, such as master teacher positions with salaries of $120,000 a year, and hour-and-a-half long blocks of early morning curriculum planning, he jumped at the opportunity.

But he said he is excited about the possibility of expanding as a charter school —and as one where the union will play an ongoing role. The school cannot open with its teachers unionized, but Waronker and Casey both said the expectation is that teachers will join the UFT quickly, a process that typically happens only after a fight.

As Michael said above:

What kind of union helps an employer "work around the union contract?"
I guess a union that only cares about keeping the dues money coming in, while the contract is gutted and public schools dismantled. Thank you, Randi Weingarten, for showing the world what employer-union collaboration really means.
Absolutely, utterly, beyond disgraceful, and a clear demonstration of how the AFT/UFT leadership is captive to the premises and practice of ed deform.

Here comes the fun part on co-location:

According to a letter of intent filed with the state, the two schools would not have any formal partnership beyond sending their teachers to the same training sessions during the summer and school year.

One piece of information the letter of intent left out was where exactly the school would be located. Waronker’s application asks for space in District 19, but it doesn’t say what kind of space he’s looking for. He said he would prefer to open in a district school building, in the kind of co-location arrangement that about two-thirds of city charter schools currently occupy, though he would figure out how to pay for private space if he had to.

The UFT’s own charter schools share space in public school buildings. But the union has opposed many co-locations and even sued to stop a number of them last year. Union officials said they would not object to Waronker’s school receiving public space if the building offered has enough room and the existing schools do not object to getting a new neighbor.

Ooooh, the UFT supports the Good Neighbor Policy.