A recent article on charters in New York City
Steve Koss from NYC Public School Parents asks some tough questions about the DoE’s policy of undermining public schools to make way for charters. “Making way” is meant literally, since they are closing schools and handing over the buildings. Steve’s article appeared Monday, in the wake of a major stand down NYC DoE stand down in the face of a lawsuit: they had threatened to close two schools in Harlem and one in Brownsville to hand over to the charter operators.
Steve’s article can be found here. It also starts below, and continues after the fold. It also may be interesting to look at these maps, which supply some context.
What’s Wrong with This Picture?
Below are three paragraphs of a story run in Friday’s New York Times entitled, “City Backs Down on a Plan to Replace Three Public Schools with Charter Schools:”
The city’s Department of Education, facing a lawsuit accusing it of violating state law, retreated on Thursday from a plan to shut down three traditional public schools to make way for charter schools.
The schools — Public Schools 194 and 241 in Harlem, and Public School 150 in Brownsville, Brooklyn — were originally scheduled to close their doors to new students in the fall, the first step in a gradual phaseout. But education officials said that the schools would remain open, though they cautioned that they could be closed in the future if they did not improve….
Mr. White stood by the decision to gradually shut the schools, which had persistently scored low on the city’s report cards and were unpopular among families. He said the incoming charter schools were receiving large numbers of applications from children zoned for the three schools — a sign, he said, of the undesirability of the traditional schools.
What’s wrong with this picture?
First, where are the DOE’s efforts to improve these schools? Is improvement of schools not the DOE’s number one responsibility? If these schools’ principals and/or teachers are not up to the job, then by all means replace them. If the resources and facilities are inadequate, by all means upgrade them. When did the DOE’s responsibility shift from “improvement” to “closure,” from “it’s our job to fix this” to “let’s shut it down and give it to somebody else?” Why are so many New Yorkers accepting this policy of piecemeal privatization of a public school system virtually without comment? Read more…
Is it cowardly to oppose a charter school application?
Jim Horn at Schools Matter doesn’t let a word about charter schools get by him. He saw the following quote in the Washington Post:
“Anytime you see a school board that is afraid of competition, they will invent any grounds that are needed to deny a charter application,” said Nelson Smith, president of the D.C.-based National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.
and just had to reply. His entry is a bit longer, and can be found here.
Here’s the part I liked:
So any time you hear parents use any of these excuses listed below to urge their Board members to resist the charter plague, remind yourself that it’s just another excuse they have cooked up to cover the fear of competition.
- When parents insist on schools with libraries and librarians, it is to cover their fear of competition.
- When parents insist on guidance counselors and psychological services, it is to cover their fear of competition.
- When parents insist on drama programs and facilities to stage plays, it is to cover their fear of competition.
- When parents insist on athletic programs, sports fields, and gymnasiums, it is to cover their fear of competition.
- When parents insist that they be able choose the people who will oversee their schools, it is to cover their fear of competition.
- When parents insist on quality programs for the disabled and gifted, it is to cover their fear of competition.
- When parents insist on quality meals prepared on site for their children, it is to cover their fear of competition.
- When parents insist on safe transportation for their children to and from school, it is to cover their fear of competition.
- When parents insist on teachers who have been educated, trained, and certified, it is to cover their fear of competition.
- When parents insist on school leaders who are educators rather than CEOs, it is to cover their fear of competition.
- When parents insist on curriculums that include music, art, vocational subjects, social studies, PE, drama, and electives, it is to cover their fear of competition.
- When parents insist on facilities that are designed as schools, rather than as pizza joints in strip malls, it is to cover their fear of competition.
So yes, it would seem that the vast majority of Americans are cowards….
Shilling, large scale
I wrote about the UFT giving council members cue cards. Ok, it didn’t look good. But it’s really not that big a deal. Had they e-mailed suggested questions, no one would have blinked.
So I didn’t bother pointing fingers at who else plays the “scripting” game. But I should have.
Bloomberg and his Chancellor do much heavier “scripted messages” than the UFT could ever come up with. They have entire press offices, paid with public money, to make the message smooth. They can and do set up and fund fake front organizations (Learn NY), and buy public figures.
Scripted events, shills, and the UFT
Gotham Schools broke the story that the UFT gave New York City council members cue cards with questions on them for Monday’s hearing on education. The story subsequently got play across local media, incuding hitting front page in the tabloids.
So, a bunch of “so whats?”
— — —
First, the questions directed to the DoE were good. And Council Members used them, ignored them, let them inform their own remarks, as they saw fit. Maybe putting them on cue cards was a little, um, obvious, but “suggested questions” regularly make the rounds by fax, e-mail, whispers… over dinner, in the hall…
So let’s drop the “shocked!” angle. Putting the messages on the cards gave the appearance of being heavy-handed, but there’s nothing more there. See the second half of this Daily News article for the broader view (excerpts below the fold).
— — —
Now, bigger and better. The questions the UFT suggested be directed at Leo Casey were softballs, for obvious reasons. But the treatment the UFT has been getting in the press around the issue of charter schools has been rough. The partial support for charter schools that the UFT publicly offers (though has never brought to its members for approval) addresses the wrong debate. The UFT is so flexible, so nuanced, so careful. But why are they skewered (daily this week) as if they are hardened opponents of charter schools?
Everyone in New York, everyone across the country knows that there is a war between charter advocates and the public schools. Everyone that is, except the UFT leadership. Charters are being used to strip resources from the public schools, to cream kids (or cream ‘involved’ parents), to break teachers’ unions. There’s only two sides… And no matter how hard they try not to answer: “Which Side are you on?” the media know. I know. Even when they want to be on both sides, they run a union…
— — —
The scripting of questions directed back to the UFT is vaguely interesting. Anyone who saw the February Delegate Assembly debate on Mayoral Control got a much better show. Questions were prepared in advance, speakers were prepared in advance. There was an opening statement from the floor, and a closing statement from the floor. I have to believe that Randi knew not only who she would call on and what they would say, but the order in which she would call on them. There was more than one chuckle when she pointed to a TJC supporter, but called him by the name of another TJC supporter… I can imagine that she might have had a cue card that listed the fifth speaker as TJC…
But it doesn’t matter. I dislike how much is prearranged, but I would not go into a debate unprepared. (keeping the debates too short, that’s another matter. And designating someone to call the question in advance, indicating that the chair wants the question called, these are obvious abuses of internal democracy. But those are other matters.)
More interesting, our current leaders apparently don’t like asking questions when they don’t know the answer. This is lawyerly. It is unbecoming of a union to adopt such a stance. Sometimes it appears that our leaders don’t want to take up cases, or arbitrations, when they don’t know the outcome in advance. We have a wonderful success rate with our “Principals in Need of Assistance” – is this because we choose cases, and prefer those where we can predict a favorable outcome?
— — —
Some questions didn’t make it to cue cards:
- Why do the neighborhoods that get charter schools tend to be overwhelmingly Black or Hispanic?
- Why do suburbs, generally, not shut down schools to make way for charters?
- Is money that could be used to improve public schools instead being used to create and operate charters?
- Where, if not teacher pay, do charters save money? (this is tricky. They may save money by not providing services that schools should provide. They may actually pay less. They may save no money at all. But if they mention saving on bureaucratic costs or somesuch, that should be pressed with a follow up. They could be lying, or they might have identified a saving that ALL schools would benefit from)
— — —
Then there’s the issue of Gotham Schools itself. Many appreciate, I appreciate, getting the twice daily summaries of ed news, especially NYC ed news, from the papers and the blogs. GS sends reporters to cover some education events in NYC, and sometimes they are the only ones there, or the only ones really focused on education.
When Gotham Schools started almost a year ago, I welcomed their arrival. I got the “news” aspect but wondered about the “community” aspect. By the Fall I was more concerned than wondering. I thought they’d become a newspaper’s education section without the rest of the paper, and without a print version. And I still believe that, in part. They cover more, they centralize more education information, then anyone else in NYC. They beat the dailies for volume and depth (though I think a print newspaper is more likely to check details, and, except the Post, less likely to run a news release as a story).
It is also clear that GS fully supports charter schools for minority kids and greater resources for upper middle class kids; that while the lion’s share of their work is reporting, the advocacy is actually central to their project, and often embedded in the reporting. Need to respect the former, and point out and oppose the latter. And, as much as they might occasionally pander to get a good union-leader interview, union-bashing sells, and fits their agenda. They’ve provided an agora of ideas for the response to the UFT’s attempts to organize KIPP, and on the scripting issue positioned themselves to the right of the New York Daily News.
Charter Schools and Race – 2 Maps
Map of Charter Schools in NYC
Map of NYC, % non-Hispanic white (2000 data):
It’s not a perfect fit, but there appear to be zero charters in areas that are over 50% white.
Vacation, at last
Still need to go in today. But after 6 ½weeks, a well-deseerved break for all of us.
Notes about NY State United Teachers Representative Assembly (2009, Buffalo)
In the past I’ve let national and state teachers conventions pass by without comment, but two things caught my eye this time.
on Flexibility over anti-teacher, anti-union reform, and on Afghanistan, RA disappoints
1. Flexibility. The Weingarten remarks (summarized here). In particular, Don’t reject reform ideas out of hand, she said, but instead
“take a fresh look at some of the more divisive issues in education. … Let’s be the ones who advance the smart approach – the way that is good for kids and fair to teachers.”
Because her words are often taken as policy, this speech may make it harder to defend teachers’ rights.
This willingness to deal on almost any idea at any time has cost us dearly in New York. Opposition to “merit pay” was pared back to opposition to “individual merit pay” allowing schools to get chunks of money that can be and probably is often divided according to test scores. Even on tenure, Article 17 Section F opens a door (voluntary buyout of ATRs) that should not have been opened. Our famous flexibility on charters has created a growing pool of non-union schools in NYC, in the face of clear existing evidence across the country that it is the billionaires who control the charter school agenda.
When their teeth marks are all over our fingers, it’s not the time to extend a hand in compromise. Look at their abuse of transfers, their violations of the parking agreement (lousy as that was), their open flouting of the contract.
And the divisive issues? They are divisive because the other side tries to get us, tries to take back union gains. It is the billionaires and superintendents, not teachers and unions, who create these issues. Pay scales, tenure, work rules… all well-established by contracts across the country. It is the billionaires and their politicians (where they buy them) or their elected positions and appointees (where they buy the positions and make direct appointments) who are divisive.
2. Afghanistan.
Look, I don’t write much about international politics, but I don’t hide my sympathies, either.
So at the RA the PSC (my other union, the Professional Staff Congress, AFT affiliate representing City University professors and other titles at the City University of New York) brings a resolution against the war in Afghanistan. It was meekly written, looks like a committee rewrite, but the intent was clear. It called for NYSUT to revitalize the anti-war movement and convey to Congress its opposition. Which would have been good. This war should be ended, the sooner the better.
Easy, right? Nope. The UFT’s Unity Caucus favors the war.
They mix together conflicting claims. On the one hand, they argue against antagonizing Obama. On the other, they argue that the war is a good war. And they are wrong twice. NYC UFT HS VP Casey said:
We do not need to pick a fight with the Obama administration on the wrong issue at the wrong time.
But the presentations and other speakers openly supported the war, including showing decade-old anti-Taliban video and making strong reference to 9/11, implying a direct link. In fact, the UFT took a pro-War position on Afghanistan back in 2001. At a spine-chilling DA that fall union leaders waved gun, flag, and blood to work the delegates into an orgy of bellicosity. To my knowledge, the resolution from that day has never been withdrawn or superseded.
Isn’t ironic that Obama supporters are calling for an end to that war, while Hillary Clinton supporters are arguing that it is the wrong time to criticize Obama? Hmmph.
What makes a constructivist censor?
Apparently, not ranting and raving. Not pushing “back-to-basics.” And, ironically, behaving rationally.
My comments on a constructivist blog got me banned (I think) a few weeks ago. A brief exchange of comments was going nowhere, and the author was getting nasty, calling me a liar, so I left a sum-it-up comment, which he blocked. He wrote a rambling e-mail, and I replied, asking 1) that he remove what we mutually understood to be a mistake, and 2) that he indicate that my response was blocked, not that I let stand by silence the charges directed at me. No correction. No note. No surprise.
It had been a while since I had engaged with a hard anti-teacher constructivist. Time had chipped at my memory, and I made novice mistakes, such as saying “constructivist curriculum” when I should have said “NSF-funded, constructivist-inspired curriculum” or somesuch. I also was surprised at how quickly I got labeled as a supporter of back to basics organizations (NYC/HOLD and Mathematically Correct) – I actively oppose the first. I was also surprised how quickly I got labeled a supporter of Saxon and Singapore. I don’t approve of either of those curricula. It was simply easier for him to argue against extremists of the other side than to deal with the real concerns of a teacher, drawn directly from experience.
— — —
The author of “Rational Mathematics Education” (Professor Goldenberg) published a rambling defense of constructivism in late February. “Constructivism,” he wrote, “doesn’t tell anyone how to teach” and he creates the typical false dichotomy between “lecture” and “constructivism.” All platitudes, none of which ring true for this teacher, who worked at an adoption site (1 – 1a – 2 – 3) for one of the NSF curricula. So I answered.
“Constructivism” may not tell anyone how to teach, but constructivist curricula often do, with a vengeance, and account for a fairly sharp parent/teacher reaction.
Now, anyone who’s been involved in this crap knows I goofed. I used the phrase “constructivist curricula” when I should have said “NSF-funded curricula” which means to all the world the same thing, but it’s a talking point for these idiots, and I walked right into it.
Sticking to their talking points, he immediately labels me a supporter of back-to-basics (I think he started with Saxon). Just not true. And of course “there’s no such thing as a constructivist curriculum”
In response I commented about the district I worked in, and another district where I’d been able to speak with teachers and administrators, here in NYC. And as I filled in details, it was clear that the resentment-generating orders came from trainers and publishers’ reps and administrators, not from the texts themselves.
So he grabbed onto that: it wasn’t the program that told us what we had to do, barred us from supplementing, etc, etc.
And then he went further. He claimed that some teachers like the programs, some don’t (in my district, those getting paid extra $$$ by the publisher were the only ones who liked Math Connections). He claimed that the bans on supplementing were justified to stop the teachers from abandoning the constructivist texts (or constructivist-inspired? who knows the right phrase). And he claimed that it was reasonable for researchers to require adherence to certain lessons during a pilot or a study. Of course I hadn’t written about a pilot or a study, but a full adoption.
Then he boasted about his knowledge of the district(s) I worked in. The lines are haughty, condescending. And wrong. He didn’t know the names of the districts and regions in NYC where he had consulted, which didn’t prevent him from putting on his professorial scorn for a regular teacher.
Oh, right. He finished by calling me a liar.
The comment that he blocked, his e-mail, and my response, all 3 are beneath the fold: Read more…
Bad luck with carnivals
Maybe I was late. Maybe I was ignored? But my submission did not make it into Math Teachers at Play #4. Shame. It is a really nicely put together carnival. Go take a look. There’s some good pedagogy, and some neat problem solving/puzzle links, including to blogs I haven’t seen before.
I’ve had submission problems with other carnivals in the past. Sometimes my fault. Sometimes not.
Next week, a new carnival of mathematics. I think. Actually, I can’t find #51 or #52. Anyone know? And the week after, edition 5 of Math Teachers at Play. Let’s see if I can make either of those.
For an end to the “Open Market” in the NYC Dept of Education
It is time to reclaim some control of the transfer process.
If, for example, you would like to transfer to the Urban Assembly Academy of Arts and Letters, and you followed the rules, you would wait for the Open Market (in a few weeks), apply, and be rejected. The job will likely be posted on the Open Market, but only after it has been filled. Look at the real listing.
I’m not picking on Arts and Letters. The DoE has communicated the message that there are no rules. The UFT has been unable to enforce any rules. The Open Market is the Wild West for administrators. Teachers, that’s us, are the cows.
There is no check on discrimination. There is no check on cronyism. And both run rampant.
Let’s look at 5 ways to rein in the system:
- End the uncontrolled, unregulated, open-ended hiring period: “Vacancies will be posted starting as early as April 15 of each year and will continue being posted throughout the Spring and Summer” this should be replaced by a definite hiring period, as we had under all previous transfer plans. The open-ended plan allows principals to hire ‘on the side’ and then quickly post and fill the position. It means teachers never get a global sense of how many positions are available in their license, or how many OTHER positions are available, putting them at an incredible disadvantage. There should be a listing date (eg, April 1 through May 1), an application period (eg April 1 through May 15) an interview period, and a notification period (eg June 1 through June 15).
- “Candidates may also apply to schools that have not advertised vacancies in their license areas so that their applications are on file at the school should a vacancy arise” This always took place, to some extent. But by introducing it into the contract, the message is sent that there are no set procedures. All the rights accrue to the DoE. Teachers are on their own. The language should be deleted.
- “Interviews will be conducted by school-based human resources committees (made up of pedagogues and administration) with the final decision to be made by the principal.” a) the committees must be re-empowered. While the principal’s voice is clearly the strongest on the committee, it is the committee that should be making the decision, otherwise, in most cases, they will not meet at all. b) the composition of the committees needs to be specified. This was done quite clearly for the SBO transfer committees (majority UFT members; and may have included parents and students as well). c) the committees need to be renamed from the insulting “human resources” back to the accurate “hiring committee”
- New hires should not be hired during the transfer period.
- Any ATR applicants should be notified in writing if they were not interviewed or hired, with an explanation.
(Quotations come from the current Board of Education teachers contract – Article 18 Section A)
Better yet would be a return to our previous transfer system(s). The Fair Student Funding (iow, Penalizing principals for hiring senior teachers) should be ended. And a return to unit costing would make it more difficult to recreate the current discriminatory hiring system.
By allowing the current system to develop, we’ve fed vulnerable members to the wolves. This must be stopped.
Using the compass to push a lesson
My class did well constructing parallel lines last Friday. (I asked them to perform the construction without telling them how) Several students figured out how to complete the construction without direction, and most did fine with some direction (although we need to keep working on accuracy). One student, on being asked to construct a parallel through a given point, replied without a moment’s hesitation “make these two corresponding angles” (motioning with her compass) “what else are we going to do?”
So this week, I changed strategy on introducing triangle congruence postulate/theorems. We opened by reviewing what “congruent” means in relation to polygons, and then I had them take out compass and striaghtedge, sketch triangles, pass them to their neighbors, and I asked the neighbor to construct a congruent triangle. Now, there was some fussing. I shrugged my shoulders when asked what to do, and indicated they could discuss with their neighbors.
Now, this did use some class time. We have some confident constructors who finished in a few moments. They talked with their neighbors, one got up and moved around. But we also have some timid constructors, a bit afraid of making marks on their papers unless they are certain they are correct. So I allowed a solid 5+ minutes, at which point three quarters or so were complete, but before complete frustration had set in for the others.
And I put a triangle on the board, and called on a student. First kid described SSS. I noted that he had constructed 3 congruent sides, and no angles. I asked students who had used that method to pick a pair of corresponding angles, and use the compass to measure them. Are they close to congruent? (positive mumbles)
Did someone do something else? Next kid described SAS (though I was surprised that she started with the angle.) Write them up as “reasons to be used in proof” “If SSS ≅ SSS, then the Δs are ≅” and “If SAS ≅ SAS, then the Δs are ≅” Brief discussion of postulate vs theorem. American books treat both as postulates. Some treat SSS alone as a postulate. Euclid picked another as his postulate. In a sense, it doesn’t matter, once one is postulated, the others can be proven (though the proofs may be challenging)
Something else? One kid in the class tried ASA. Oops, one kid tried SSA. But look, the compasses were out… I set up an easy triangle to copy, where the obtuse and acute cases were easy to find.
We ended up with less practice time than I would normally have with this lesson. But we got to everything we needed, there is good practice in the homework, and that hands-on constructing, I have a feeling that it is helping to make the learning much more solid.
Remove Bronx Theatre from Do Not Apply list
A teacher, HB, has written in, challenging Bronx Theatre’s place on the Do Not Apply list. He also thinks it never belonged. I rechecked my work, which could have been mistaken. But I don’t think so. I also went back to my sources, and must agree with part of what HB says: today Bronx Theatre does not belong on the Do Not Apply list. I am removing it.
HB also asks hard questions about my methodology. He’s right, it is not objective, and my samples cannot be representative. I am not a union official, nor do I have privileged access. I talk to people, I listen. And when my judgment is challenged by a teacher, I look more closely. That’s the best I can do. It’s better than the DoE.
Is it worth making the list, if some of the information might be questioned? Of course it is. Most of the schools that got on the list last Spring still belong there. The list is a red flag, a warning for Fellows and teachers seeking to transfer. And it has extra value because it has the potential to grow, shrink, adjust, be corrected. Every teacher, from those who suggest adding a school, to those who tell me that a school has improved, to those who add anecdotes or incidents, to those who challenge a school’s inclusion, all of those add to a valuable discussion that might not take place without the Do Not Apply list.
— — —
When I started the Do Not Apply list, I used a combination of sources to decide whether a school belonged there. Some were easy: Aerospace, Fordham Arts, Eximius, clearly the worst three high schools to work in in the Bronx. For others I used a combination of sources. I added no schools without at least 2 sources plus some additional confirmation. In the case of Bronx Theatre, I had 5 sources, including current teachers, not including the Chapter Leader from 2 years before, who’d ended up in the Rubber Room (in the DoE, 2 years old info is out of date) I think their collective judgment, as of last Spring, was correct. Today I looked at their “Learning Environment” surveys, which I generally hate, but I noticed that 58% of the teachers as of last year did not trust the principal at her word.
But things change. When HB wrote in, I was surprised. I pushed hard questions back at him. But I also returned to my sources. None gave as glowing a positive review as HB. But none could supply fresh information for keeping Bronx Theatre on the list, and some thought things had calmed down.
So, thanks for challenging. The Do Not Apply list is better for it.
Speech from Fordham Rally
On March 13, 2009, 400 teachers from throughout the Bronx rallied in front of the Theodore Roosevelt building on Fordham Road to protest Iris Blige, abusive principal of the Fordham HS of the Arts, and her latest series of outrageous actions: having a teacher arrested for a letter it is likely an administrator forged, and having her sent to the rubber room, and retaliating against those who asked questions.
Lynne Winderbaum was the first of several speakers. Lynne, UFT Bronx HS District Rep, deals with these abusive principals almost every day.
[It took me too long to type this, but it’s still worth posting.]
We are here today to let the DoE know, and the superintendant know, and the ISC know, that we are fed up with their support of principals like Iris Blige of Fordham Arts. Principals like Blige who ruin lives, ruin careers, rule by fear and intimidation
Why does the DoE tolerate a turnover rate of 70.5% in one year? Dozens of teachers have left every year since 2004 because of this principal. There have been 11 APs in her school in fewer than 5 years. 9 have left.
Talented, dedicated young teachers who have given extra time, taken on extra duties, and been populat with their students lose their jobs every year. Good teachers who are on the UFT Committee or who stand up for their rights are given predetermined unsatisfactory evaluations. Evaluations, which are designed to improve instruction in the classroom, are being instead subverted into a tool to intimidate teachers and stifle dissent.
Why does the DoE tolerate principals like Iris Blige who are not instructional leaders but people who maintain their power by using their authority to rate staff to impose their will.
Why does the DoE tolerate principals like Iris Blige who, when they are not giving out unjust ratings and firing new teachers, are sending them to the rubber room for petty or no reason?
A former UFT chapter leader spent two years on trumped up charges which were ultimately dropped. Another teacher who you will hear from today spent two years on an allegation coerced from an AP. There were never any charged investigation or decision. She simply came back from a Step 2 grievance downtown. That was her “crime.”
Now Raqnel James has been sent there with no evidence. Will she give two years of her life, too?
Release Ms. James! Remove Ms. Blige!
How does the DoE allow a school to be ruined by such a high turnover rate and loss of good, talented teachers? Because of Blige’s abusive treatment of staff, the school has been added on the “Do Not Apply” website and the teaching fellows are warning each other to stay away because the school is a career-ender. The only people who work here are those who regret that they had not known. But after today, everyone will know.
Fordham Arts cannot retain teachers or supervisors. Fordham Arts is run by a mean-spirited, hostile individual who shows no loyalty to her staff and tells them to “Leave if you don’t like it.” Fordham Arts cannot even tell its students that their favorite teacher will be back next year.
We are here today to demand the quality leadership that we deserve in our schools, to demand real instructional leaders, to demand professionalism, not autocracy, anger and intimidation.
Leaders are people who inspire others to follow. Those, like Iris Blige, who cannot lead, and must rule by terror, inspire others to leave.
My other posts about the Rally:
More Bronx Science
This is not an update – but rather a filling-in. I posted the Special Complaint from last May. At the bottom of this post is the Retaliation Grievance from last June.
BxHSoS’ perenniel duel with Stuyvesant for academically strongest high school in NYC (Board of Ed only) had been lost well before Valerie Reidy took over as principal. She did not initiate the downward spiral. But the steady destruction of the faculty, for that she holds full responsibility. Department after department has been disrupted, senior teachers pushed to retire, younger teachers to transfer.
This story is about the mathematics department. Two years ago Reidy brought in a fairly inexperienced teacher to run this senior department. Rosemary Jahoda turned out to be arbitrary, capricious, nasty… She made up rules, and accused teachers of violating them. She yelled, belittled, intimidated. She insulted teachers far more capable than she. She put in place ridiculous procedures, laughable mistakes (except you can’t laugh when the kids and teachers are victimized). And she wrote up teachers, U-rated them. After a few months in power (and this does seem like a power-trip), the teachers revolted. This is Bronx Science, “keep your head down, teach your classes” rules the day. But Jahoda was too much. Teachers with decades of service initiated the first union activity: they signed a special complaint.
A special complaint is a big deal. Article 23 of our contract creates a special, expedited path to follow when faced with unending harassment. Now, something is horribly wrong here: the DoE seriously and intentionally violated the Article, delaying the complaint over a year. That will be the subject of another post. But rewind to May of ’08, and look at those 21 out of 23 teachers in the Department who bravely stood together. And by June they were being harassed.
What follows is a second complaint, a letter of particulars about retaliation the Principal and Assistant Principal of Mathematics perpetrated against their employees. Read more…
Parent Teacher Fizzles in Drizzle
12 years teaching, my 24th parent teacher conferences.
My first 5 years were in a regular Bronx high school – two years with freshmen, and the next three years with at least a few classes where I could drum up better than average parent turnout for parent teacher evening and afternoon.
My last 7 years have been at a small school with a built-in greater than average interest level. 30-40 is nothing special.
But tonight? Spring term is always lighter than the fall, and I only teach 3 classes, which reduces my numbers (though 2 of 3 are freshmen). But when the first lull hit, and I walked out to chat with parents in line for other teachers… there weren’t so many to talk with.
The drizzle fizzled our (usually high) turn out. This was my smallest turnout ever. I think I had just a dozen.
NYC Department of Education – taking pride in failure
The DoE announced yesterday that they failed to match over 7,000 children, almost one in ten, with one of their top 12 high school choices. That’s twelve, boys and girls. Can’t set the bar much lower than that.
In addition, another 15% got matched to a school out of their top 3 choices. You know, in parts of Manhattan that might not sound so bad, but, recall, the Bronx is part of New York, too.
New year, same crud. The Department of Education is utterly incapable of managing anything well. But don’t think this is pure incompetence. There’s always some malevolence lurking, even if it’s not immediately obvious. In this case: “zoned schools.”
Most children in New York no longer have a default neighborhood option. That stinks for neighborhoods, stinks for parents and kids. It matters less in the parts of Manhattan where good small high school options were created. It stinks in the Bronx where Nadelstern set up ridiculously-themed, mis-managed, unscrutinized mini-schools and destroyed almost all the big schools. (Same goes for parts of Brooklyn).
A kid should have a few “special” choices, but the default school should be a good one. Instead, the DoE destroyed the default, took it away, and 10% of freshmen will essentially be randomly placed in the sort of high school that still has open seats.
Brooklyn UFT on school governance hearing
I am writing this to keep you informed as to what took place at yesterday’s Brooklyn governance hearing, relevant to our ongoing discussions at Adcom. In total, we had approximately 50 people in attendance including full time and part time office staff, retirees, and chapter leaders. I also want to thank Marvin and Briget for their presence and assistance:
In what can only be described as the WWF Smackdown in Brooklyn, the Assembly Education Committee body slammed the DOE presenters in a no holds barred confrontation. Present for the DOE were Chris Cerf, Eric Naldelstern, Jim Leibman, Marcia Lyles, Martine Guerrier, and two other DOE functionaries. Dennis Walcott was their fireman and kept plenty busy trying to put out all the flames. Following Lyles’ 24 page oral reading of DOE’s magnificent accomplishments under mayoral control, the committee blasted away on the following topics:
Graduation rates—Hakim Jeffries wanted to know why Lyles’ presentation of graduation rates did not include statistics on black males and Latinos, especially since the DOE had been made aware that this was to be a focus of the hearing. Lyles’ only response was that she would be “happy” to get the committee that data. When asked about Diane Ravitch’s conclusions that their graduation data is not statistically significant, Lyles’ sidestepped by stating that their numbers showed movement in the right direction. The issue of credit recovery also came up, Lyles maintained it is “no different” from the system that has always been in place.
Test scores—Karim Camara was critical of the comparison of NYC students to those in Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and Yonkers on measures such as NAEP. Jim Brennan followed up by questioning why reading scores from 2002-03 had been used to show gains when those results were actually from the year before mayoral control went into effect?
School report cards- Daniel O’Donnell said the report cards are useless, and that no parents from his district would ever pick a school based upon that grade. Leibman attempted to defend their accuracy, but ended up enraging Mark Weprin to a point where he stated that these hearings are no longer a matter of whether the committee will change the governance structure, but what the changes will be.
Test prep—Weprin also questioned the overemphasis on test prep by giving the example of his 8 year old child being deluged with these activities. Lyles gave another response that “it has always been done”. Leibman tried to convince the committee that in their surveys of parents only a small percentage (11%) feel that there is too much emphasis on test prep.
Leadership Academy—O’Donnell asked Cerf how much it cost, he responded 10 million, or perhaps 11 million dollars, There was also a Q &A on their effectiveness. Cerf indicated the cost was being funded by non-profits but backtracked after being challenged and said next year it will be funded by DOE.
Class size—Cathy Nolan was highly critical of DOE’s encouragement of a two tier system, with 21 -23 kids in the charter school classes vs. 31- 33 in the public school classes.
Children’s First Network—Joan Millman asked our question on CFN; Nadelstern gave the answer we expected, but in so technical a manner that it was incomprehensible to anyone who was not familiar with the topic.
School Closings —The committee was critical of DOE’s taking credit for reducing the number of schools on the SURR list by closing schools, as well as the decision making process about school closings. Their response (which got a big round of boos from the audience) was that they do consult with the community about such decisions.
Parental involvement—Nick Perry put Guerrier on the hot seat over her failure to return his multiple calls regarding a parent in his district with a school problem. (She responded so quickly that she sounded like that fast-talking guy on the commercial that no one can understand.)
Special Ed— The committee also heard testimony from others about the limited number of charter school seats for special ed and ELL. Patricia Connelly testified that even DOE’s own optimistic numbers indicate that 10% of children are not getting mandated speech services, and 30 – 40 % are not getting OT and PT.
No bid contracts– Other unions complained about no-bid contracts. DOE’s response was that it is a low percentage (3%?) of their total contracts.
In my opinion, O’Donnell and Weprin were the most effective questioners. With over a hundred speakers requesting time, the hearing ran almost 10 hours straight through until 8 pm. I was able to give my testimony, the following additional people from the Brooklyn office who had originally planned to speak submitted written statements—Ellen Driesen, Geof Sorkin, and Dolores Lozupone. Several other Chapter Leaders and/or members were present and did get some very brief testimony time near the end– Lisa North, James Eterno, and two of our Chapel Street residents (Philip Nobile, Nick DeMarco).
Perhaps most effective to the day were our visual aids, which those of us in the audience synchronized to the committee’s questions and the DOE’s answers. As you can see from the photo below (check out http://www.gothamschools.org), they were a big hit with the entire audience, and at a few points the assembly members could be seen smiling and nodding their heads in acknowledgement. Special thanks to Garry Sprung and Dorothee Benz for making these signs possible. HS.
Post 1000
It’s almost the third anniversary of this blog. And this is the 1000th post.
Out of steam this week: already wiped out by grading, a bit sick (it’s what I get for visiting little germy nieces and nephews), computer a bit sick (we’ll need to take a careful look and maybe a trip to the Apple Store), and parent teacher conferences Thursday and Friday.
But jd2718 will be back soon…
What discipline logic?
Intro to Logic, in college, using Copi or Hurley or one of those texts, which department does it fall in? I figure a majority of the time it is in Philosophy, a minority in Math, right? Are they the same intro courses?
Some schools offer a strictly math logic course, but that would use a completely different text/curriculum/syllabus, right?
Is there the equivalent in philosophy, a course or courses in logic that have no math at all? What would they be like?
Foreshadowing with compass and straightedge
Teachers often teach, we are frequently told, when they are not certain what to do, in the way that they were taught.
But yours truly never was taught construction, and has nothing to fall back on. So I invent.
This term I have an off-track advanced class. They started geometry in February, and will take the state exam (Regents! yuch) next January. Two weeks of logic (the kind I like), and onward…
I decided to teach construction from the first week. To introduce something new, or synthesize something they’d already done. Four weeks, we’ve killed full periods twice, half periods twice. The kiddies like the constructions, a lot.
Next week, do you think a kid will propose a good construction of a parallel line?
Each period I show them something new. Something small. And then assign a more involved construction that practices the skill (mini-project). Some weeks they get a choice. For example, first week, we learned to take a given radius and point, and construct circles. And they practiced and practiced. And after three weeks even the kids who could not get a decent circle are fairly good. Anyhow, the first week they did circles and had three choices: some kids just made pictures with the circles (pig’s faces), or concentric circles with equal distance between the circles, or an interlocking circle pattern (of my own invention, though it must be common – pick a point on the circle, that is the new center of a new circle, constant radius, new points of intersection become new centers, etc.)
Jump ahead, yesterday I teach congruent angles. And I want everyone working on the same mini-project. I’ll give you letters, though they didn’t have them. Start with 
In the diagram at right, A, is sort of close:
Anyhow, a question for you. Do you think, next week, when I ask for a parallel line construction (and we’ll have studied corresponding angles, alt int, etc, in the interim) do you think a kid will propose the standard construction? I will likely start with a helping device, perhaps “Given 
I think it is 50 – 50, but if it happens, that would be a bit more positive feedback for this… It would be really cool if, having been led to the vicinity, some students made the leap on their own. I already have them highly motivated by the hands on activity, which has value. I’d like some evidence that they are learning a) more, or b) better, or c) deeper.
Math Teachers at Play #3
Here, at f(t).
Arrgh! I should have submitted somthing. (Really, I’ve been writing union and not math for the last two weeks, but still…)
Good carnival though. Go have some fun!
(and follow the link to the sum of three numbers equals their product – that one’s bothering me.)
Maybe a typo
In a recent letter to the Wall Street Journal, a UFT leader wrote:
Unfortunately, there are people who are so entrenched in the old battles between policy makers and labor that they fail to see that we have moved beyond past skirmishes and are working together for our city’s kids.
Perhaps that’s a typo? It turns reality on its head. My take is that some of our union leaders deal with DoE Central, legal, etc, on a day to day basis, make agreements, sit down the next month and make new agreements. They don’t see or don’t notice that the DoE systematically violates the spirit and letter of its own agreements. They are at war with us, and anyone who is too close to see should take a step back and take a far more careful look.
We have recently witnessed:
- The surge in abusive principals. Iris Blige is one of many.
- School closings without community input. Neighborhoods left with no neighborhood elementary school.
- ATRs: a large and growing number of ATRs. The November deal has led to fewer than 20 placements so far.
- RTRs: the first teacher lay offs in years.
- CFE $ for reducing class sizes misdirected and used for everything but.
- A massive increase in paper work. Individual student goals that must be typed and retyped. “Accountability” loads on teachers and counselors through the roof.
- A mindless, slavish tracking of data, at the expense of education. Progress reports that measure nothing, but are rigged to generate fear (and busy work).
- Off the scale test prep.
- Parking rearranged not to reduce parking spaces, but to reduce the number of teachers who have access to them.
- Credit recovery – off the scale, often with almost no work required, making a mockery of our work, and graduating kids without high school level skills.
This is a DoE that violates agreements at will. A DoE that decentralizes with the intent of making it impossible to track who is violating or abusing the system. A DoE that is trying to turn teaching into a temp job. A DoE that shows no respect for students, parents, or teachers.
If we sit down with the DoE, and we take them at their word, we are selling our members short. If we sign an agreement, and we believe that they intend to honor it, we are selling our members short. This is a vicious, nasty, lying, cheating, dishonorable DoE. And they are at war with us.
Brownsville rally against school closure
Rally tomorrow against a school closure in Brooklyn. Teachers learned their school would be closed. Other schools have been reopened as two small schools, or as a small school and a charter. But the DoE told the staff of PS150 that there would be two charter schools and no public schools replacing them. Here is their leaflet:
Respect the Brownsville community
The kids in this community deserve a quality neighborhood school
Join concerned parents and teachers for a RALLY at PS150
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
3:30 – 5:00
In front of the school
364 Sackman Street, 11212
Tell the Department of Education to hear our voice!
- Parents, teachers and the Brownsville community were not consulted on the decision to phase out the school.
- We need a guarantee our children will have seats in this elementary school; we want to keep our children in the neighborhood.
- Give us the resources we need to provide a quality education: enrichment programs, science labs, after school programs, school supplies, and an up to date library.
We need a guarantee that the school will provide mandated services for students with special needs.
For more information, please contact Marisol Pena at (718) 495-7746
[Update: linked today (Wednesday, day of demonstration) by Edwize. ]
DoE e-mail? Avoid using it…
Don’t use your DoE email unless you absolutely are required to. It is not private. Not private? That’s right, the DoE has the right to take a look at all you send and receive. If you are almost every normal person, there are some business e-mails that include some personal chit chat. It is very very easy to inadvertantly cross lines. So, no DoE e-mail, unless absolutely necessary. Please.
Rally at Fordham Arts – the Bronx UFT Video
The Bronx UFT got a video up pretty quick. Five minutes, it has highlights from most of the speakers, and some nice crowd shots.
See also:
another video (jumpier, but different shots and clips)
call to attend (this was handed out, not by me, at the rally. I felt good)
JD2718 