Here is her perspective on the recent UFT press conference on class size:
http://nycpublicschoolparents.
Friday, October 23, 2015
MORE Conference TODAY - Leonie Haimson on class size
What a lineup. Looking forward to Leonie Haimson's presentation which will include some history of the UFT/Unity approach on class size.
Here is her perspective on the recent UFT press conference on class size:
http://nycpublicschoolparents.
Here is her perspective on the recent UFT press conference on class size:
http://nycpublicschoolparents.
At PBS Newshour: Jesse Hagopian - At a school with a history of social protest, this teacher is leading an opposition to ‘excessive testing’
What's going on out there with PBS? Telling our side of the story? First the mash-up of Eva, now Jesse Hagopian, who barely lost the election in the Seattle Teacher Union election and a leader of a sister caucus to MORE.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/
Watch their post-Jesse story where they talk about the whining complaints from Eva.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/
Watch their post-Jesse story where they talk about the whining complaints from Eva.
Back From Japan
We got back from a 16-day tour of Japan with Overseas Adventure Tours (OAT) on Wed. night - thank to Joel Hamberger for airport pickup services of 2 very jet-lagged people who had been traveling for 24 hours. We left Kyoto to head for the airport at 12 noon on Wednesday and arrive back home at 10:30 Wednesday evening when it was almost noon Thursday in Japan - the kind of stuff that makes my hair hurt. And trying to follow the Mets I had to turn off airplane mode and use data every morning to check the scores - and we had 2 couples from Kansas City on the trip who had their own rooting interests - and will probably be facing them in the Series.
I hope I don't fall asleep while doing the UFT democracy workshop at the MORE conference tomorrow - but no worries as Michael Fiorillo and Arthur Goldstein (NYC Educator) will be there to give me a shove.
We loved Japan for so many reasons - which I will go into at some other time. All I will say is that I now understand it when people say that coming back from Japan where everything seems to work so well to the US is like going to a 3rd world country. Nothing like traveling on subways where you can eat off the floor or a bullet train going 200 mph to give you that feeling.
Here is today's column for The Wave I wrote Tuesday morning - when it was Monday night here. Oy!
I hope I don't fall asleep while doing the UFT democracy workshop at the MORE conference tomorrow - but no worries as Michael Fiorillo and Arthur Goldstein (NYC Educator) will be there to give me a shove.
We loved Japan for so many reasons - which I will go into at some other time. All I will say is that I now understand it when people say that coming back from Japan where everything seems to work so well to the US is like going to a 3rd world country. Nothing like traveling on subways where you can eat off the floor or a bullet train going 200 mph to give you that feeling.
Here is today's column for The Wave I wrote Tuesday morning - when it was Monday night here. Oy!
School Scope: A (Very) Brief Message From Kyoto
By Norm Scott
I’m writing this from Japan on the morning of Tuesday October 19 which is the evening of Monday October 18 back in Rockaway. I’m still jet-lagged and confused after 2 weeks. I have to get the score of the Mets game while they are playing at 10 AM in the morning. And as I get ready to head out for our final day of touring the Giants are just getting started with their Monday night football game. Let me know how it comes out. Anyway, we expect to be back in New York on Wednesday night, October 21, which will really by Thursday morning October 22 here in Japan. And last night was the first night I slept a full 8 hours. I’m too confused to tell you more about our trip. All I know is that I have missed tons of rehearsals for the RTC production of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and Producer Susan Jasper has been sending me emails that they own me once I get back – my first rehearsal will be Thursday night October 22 which will be Friday morning October 23 over here. I need a big jug of sake.
Thursday, October 22, 2015
ICE 2010 Platform on UFT Democracy - a starting point for discussing democracy at the MORE conference
I'm working with Michael Fiorillo and Arthur Goldstein on the 11 AM workshop on UFT democracy.
Here are the 2 handouts for discussion at the workshop on UFT democracy as a starting point for developing a platform for our demands for structural change. First we review the current structure and then brainstorm changes.
The people attending can add, eliminate or modify these points or take things in an entirely different direction. Check these out if you aren't attending the conference or will be going to other workshops and send any suggestions you might have.
Or How would you structure the UFT if you were starting from scratch?
The rub, of course, is that as long as Unity controls every structure in the union there is no way to change those structures without a massive membership revolt from below. We will also brainstorm strategies for forcing change.
VI. For a militant, progressive, democratic UFT: a democratic UFT is a key to a strong union
One of the major goals of a movement seeking change in the union is to take on the task of democratization — setting up structures and procedures that will give the rank and file the opportunity to have direct and constant ability to formulate union policy.
On paper the UFT is more democratic than many unions, but in practice what we see is a well-oiled political machine:
If you’re looking for democracy within Unity Caucus, however, you won’t find it there either. Caucus discipline is maintained through a system of rewards and patronage: a career ladder within the union, out-of-classroom jobs in schools (in the past at district offices and the Central Board), assistance in getting good administrative jobs, and transfers to desirable schools. It’s the Success for Unity Caucus Faithful Program. Simply put, dissension within Unity Caucus is not tolerated. There has rarely been a delegate elected on the Unity Caucus slate who has voted against the Unity Caucus position at a NYSUT or AFT convention. Unity Caucus utilizes its well-disciplined base within the UFT to control the state and national unions so that it can implement its political agenda.
Our union officers know that an informed, involved membership with a greater voice would challenge their policies and would also vote them out of office. That’s why they work so hard to keep us from knowing what’s really going on and having regular access to viewpoints that differ from theirs.
Key structural changes are needed to bring greater democracy to our union so that the membership can decide what their union should stand for.
1. Divisional elections for divisional vice-presidents (i.e., high school members alone should vote for high school VP, vocational high school members for vocational high school VP, and so on).
In 1994 Unity Caucus ended the practice of people within a division voting exclusively within their division for their own vice-president because they wanted to make sure no VP would ever again be elected from an opposition group, as had happened a few years earlier. Unity changed the procedure to make the balloting for vice-presidents at large. That means that all the members of the UFT vote for divisional vice-presidents, even if they don’t work in that division. In addition, retirees, who in the last election cast 35% of all votes cast, also vote for the high school, junior high school, and elementary divisional vice-presidents, which means that non-working members have a tremendous influence over who will represent working teachers.
2. Retirees should not vote for UFT officers, who are responsible for negotiating the contract for active members.
The NYS Public Employees Relations Board has ruled that retired members of the UFT are not members of our bargaining unit. Therefore, retirees should not vote for those who represent active members in collective bargaining. There should be a special retiree VP who handles retiree issues and is elected exclusively by retired UFT members.
3. Retirees should vote for three teacher members of the Teachers’ Retirement System Board.
State law restricts TRS membership to in-service members and does not allow retirees to serve as teacher reps. Only active UFT members may vote for these positions, even though retirees have a stake in TRS issues. The UFT should be working actively to change this anomaly.
4. District representatives (a full-time UFT position to support the chapter leaders and members in a district) should be elected by all the members of a district.
In 2002, the UFT suspended District Representative elections and appointed people to these positions. The DRs must bring their members’ voices to the union officers rather than act as mouthpieces for the people at the top.
5. At-large UFT Executive Board seats should be configured proportionally; that is, the number of seats given to a caucus on the Executive Board should relate to the percentage of votes that caucus received in the election.
Divisional and functional seats should still be voted on by each division to ensure representation from each division, so that no caucus within the UFT is excluded from the Executive Board. A caucus getting 30% of the vote in an at-large election deserves 30% of the at-large Executive Board seats to present their positions and shape the policies of the union.
6. UFT Delegates to the AFT and NYSUT Conventions should be apportioned along similar lines.
Without proportional representation Unity Caucus has been able to use the UFT’s winner-take-all method to control the NYSUT statewide union and the AFT national union, thus controlling all our policies from the local to the national level.
7. All full- and part-time non-elected union jobs intended for UFT members who work for the DoE should be posted in the schools. The senior qualified candidate should be hired.
Virtually all jobs are instead doled out as patronage positions. DoE employees who work for the UFT serve at the discretion of Unity Caucus and owe their loyalty to them, rather than to the members. Union employees who do not work for the DoE (e.g., lawyers, cleaning crews) are of course excluded from this recommendation.
8. Every issue of the NY Teacher should be opened to opposing viewpoints.
A full debate in print on union issues twice a month will allow members’ opinions to be fully disseminated. A resolution was put forward at the Delegate Assembly last year proposing that every issue of the NY Teacher be opened up to articles by people who oppose the UFT policies on a particular issue. Unity voted it down saying that allowing opposition viewpoints to be published in the union’s newspaper once every three years was sufficient.
9. Meet the President meetings held during UFT Election years should be Meet the Candidates’ Forums.
Candidates of all declared slates should be able to have equal time at these forums. Otherwise, Meet the President meetings become thinly disguised campaign rallies for the incumbent president and the other officers. Free and fair elections are essential in a democratic union. Unity Caucus has a tremendous advantage by controlling the union newspaper and through the distribution of all its literature that only reflects their positions. This outreach is prohibitive for opposing caucus members, who have neither the mechanisms nor the resources to match what Unity Caucus has at its disposal from our union dues.
10. All caucuses who have met requirements to run in an election should be able to mail at least one piece of literature to all the members at union expense during election time.
An advertisement in the NY Teacher is not sufficient to be able to get a political message across to the members, given the advantages Unity Caucus already has.
11. There should be an open microphone at all Union meetings.
Presently the chair has discretion to call on whomever he/she wants, and in this way he/she manipulates the discussion. At each Delegate Assembly, for example, we see the same people constantly recognized while others rarely or never get the floor. Anyone who wants to speak should have the right to do so.
12. UFT committees (special education, high school, middle school, etc…) should vote on proposals presented at their meetings, with the understanding that such proposals shall be forwarded to both the Executive Board and the DA.
Top-down UFT meetings where officers merely disseminate information prohibit other positions from being discussed, voted upon and officially recommended by the bodies.
13. When elected positions such as officers, District Reps, and functional chapter leaders become available in the middle of a term, there should be a special election.
Typically Unity Caucus replaces its officials by having them retire or move to a different position in the middle of a term. This gives the Unity dominated Executive Board the opportunity to choose the replacement long before there is an actual election. For example, Sandra Feldman resigned as UFT president to become AFT president in 1998, and the Executive Board picked Weingarten to replace her as UFT president; Weingarten didn’t have to face the voters until 1999. The NY Teacher then printed a series of publicity pieces about Weingarten, giving her a lot of name recognition and good press. When she ran as an incumbent in the election, she was at a huge advantage over potential opponents. The same sequence is now occurring with Michael Mulgrew, who the Executive Board has installed as interim president until the March 2010 elections.
14. Make the Delegate Assembly a legislative body where officers and Executive Board members have limits on how long they can speak. Often the regular business of the agenda is not taken up until way past 5:00 p.m., which leaves very little time for delegates to discuss the motions. The president’s and other reports must be limited so that the Delegate Assembly can truly be a legislative body.
15. There should be a majority rather than a 2/3 vote required to put motions on the current and next month’s Delegate Assembly agenda.
16. Limit the total percentage of retiree delegates at the Delegate Assembly. There are now 300 retired DA delegates, who comprise 11% of the total and who have a disproportionate say on working conditions.
Here are the 2 handouts for discussion at the workshop on UFT democracy as a starting point for developing a platform for our demands for structural change. First we review the current structure and then brainstorm changes.
The people attending can add, eliminate or modify these points or take things in an entirely different direction. Check these out if you aren't attending the conference or will be going to other workshops and send any suggestions you might have.
Or How would you structure the UFT if you were starting from scratch?
The rub, of course, is that as long as Unity controls every structure in the union there is no way to change those structures without a massive membership revolt from below. We will also brainstorm strategies for forcing change.
ICE platform, Part VI
VI. For a militant, progressive, democratic UFT: a democratic UFT is a key to a strong union
One of the major goals of a movement seeking change in the union is to take on the task of democratization — setting up structures and procedures that will give the rank and file the opportunity to have direct and constant ability to formulate union policy.
On paper the UFT is more democratic than many unions, but in practice what we see is a well-oiled political machine:
— The least number of people make the decisions.As soon as their monopoly of power is challenged, the union’s officers change the rules of the game. Some years ago, when members elected an opposition candidate for high school vice-president and came very close in the junior high division, the officials changed the voting procedures for divisional leaders, turning them into at-large positions. They eliminated elections for district representatives who leave mid-term and fill these positions with appointments by the presidents. District reps play key roles for the union bosses by rewarding friendly chapter chairpersons and punishing dissident chapters through the delivery or withholding of services. They intervene in chapter elections by stealthily supporting candidates against known dissident chapter chairpersons and sometimes even delegates.
— The rank and file are deliberately kept unaware of what is going on in regards to most issues.
— There is a conscious attempt by the president and other officers to limit rank and file participation in meetings, discussions and the decision-making process, with union structures set up to enforce this policy.
— There is a consistent effort by union officers on all levels to stifle dissent and opposition. They go so far as to modify or violate previously existing democratic practices and procedures in order to do this.
— Measures are taken at the Delegate Assembly and in citywide voting to ensure the desired results.
If you’re looking for democracy within Unity Caucus, however, you won’t find it there either. Caucus discipline is maintained through a system of rewards and patronage: a career ladder within the union, out-of-classroom jobs in schools (in the past at district offices and the Central Board), assistance in getting good administrative jobs, and transfers to desirable schools. It’s the Success for Unity Caucus Faithful Program. Simply put, dissension within Unity Caucus is not tolerated. There has rarely been a delegate elected on the Unity Caucus slate who has voted against the Unity Caucus position at a NYSUT or AFT convention. Unity Caucus utilizes its well-disciplined base within the UFT to control the state and national unions so that it can implement its political agenda.
Our union officers know that an informed, involved membership with a greater voice would challenge their policies and would also vote them out of office. That’s why they work so hard to keep us from knowing what’s really going on and having regular access to viewpoints that differ from theirs.
Key structural changes are needed to bring greater democracy to our union so that the membership can decide what their union should stand for.
1. Divisional elections for divisional vice-presidents (i.e., high school members alone should vote for high school VP, vocational high school members for vocational high school VP, and so on).
In 1994 Unity Caucus ended the practice of people within a division voting exclusively within their division for their own vice-president because they wanted to make sure no VP would ever again be elected from an opposition group, as had happened a few years earlier. Unity changed the procedure to make the balloting for vice-presidents at large. That means that all the members of the UFT vote for divisional vice-presidents, even if they don’t work in that division. In addition, retirees, who in the last election cast 35% of all votes cast, also vote for the high school, junior high school, and elementary divisional vice-presidents, which means that non-working members have a tremendous influence over who will represent working teachers.
2. Retirees should not vote for UFT officers, who are responsible for negotiating the contract for active members.
The NYS Public Employees Relations Board has ruled that retired members of the UFT are not members of our bargaining unit. Therefore, retirees should not vote for those who represent active members in collective bargaining. There should be a special retiree VP who handles retiree issues and is elected exclusively by retired UFT members.
3. Retirees should vote for three teacher members of the Teachers’ Retirement System Board.
State law restricts TRS membership to in-service members and does not allow retirees to serve as teacher reps. Only active UFT members may vote for these positions, even though retirees have a stake in TRS issues. The UFT should be working actively to change this anomaly.
4. District representatives (a full-time UFT position to support the chapter leaders and members in a district) should be elected by all the members of a district.
In 2002, the UFT suspended District Representative elections and appointed people to these positions. The DRs must bring their members’ voices to the union officers rather than act as mouthpieces for the people at the top.
5. At-large UFT Executive Board seats should be configured proportionally; that is, the number of seats given to a caucus on the Executive Board should relate to the percentage of votes that caucus received in the election.
Divisional and functional seats should still be voted on by each division to ensure representation from each division, so that no caucus within the UFT is excluded from the Executive Board. A caucus getting 30% of the vote in an at-large election deserves 30% of the at-large Executive Board seats to present their positions and shape the policies of the union.
6. UFT Delegates to the AFT and NYSUT Conventions should be apportioned along similar lines.
Without proportional representation Unity Caucus has been able to use the UFT’s winner-take-all method to control the NYSUT statewide union and the AFT national union, thus controlling all our policies from the local to the national level.
7. All full- and part-time non-elected union jobs intended for UFT members who work for the DoE should be posted in the schools. The senior qualified candidate should be hired.
Virtually all jobs are instead doled out as patronage positions. DoE employees who work for the UFT serve at the discretion of Unity Caucus and owe their loyalty to them, rather than to the members. Union employees who do not work for the DoE (e.g., lawyers, cleaning crews) are of course excluded from this recommendation.
8. Every issue of the NY Teacher should be opened to opposing viewpoints.
A full debate in print on union issues twice a month will allow members’ opinions to be fully disseminated. A resolution was put forward at the Delegate Assembly last year proposing that every issue of the NY Teacher be opened up to articles by people who oppose the UFT policies on a particular issue. Unity voted it down saying that allowing opposition viewpoints to be published in the union’s newspaper once every three years was sufficient.
9. Meet the President meetings held during UFT Election years should be Meet the Candidates’ Forums.
Candidates of all declared slates should be able to have equal time at these forums. Otherwise, Meet the President meetings become thinly disguised campaign rallies for the incumbent president and the other officers. Free and fair elections are essential in a democratic union. Unity Caucus has a tremendous advantage by controlling the union newspaper and through the distribution of all its literature that only reflects their positions. This outreach is prohibitive for opposing caucus members, who have neither the mechanisms nor the resources to match what Unity Caucus has at its disposal from our union dues.
10. All caucuses who have met requirements to run in an election should be able to mail at least one piece of literature to all the members at union expense during election time.
An advertisement in the NY Teacher is not sufficient to be able to get a political message across to the members, given the advantages Unity Caucus already has.
11. There should be an open microphone at all Union meetings.
Presently the chair has discretion to call on whomever he/she wants, and in this way he/she manipulates the discussion. At each Delegate Assembly, for example, we see the same people constantly recognized while others rarely or never get the floor. Anyone who wants to speak should have the right to do so.
12. UFT committees (special education, high school, middle school, etc…) should vote on proposals presented at their meetings, with the understanding that such proposals shall be forwarded to both the Executive Board and the DA.
Top-down UFT meetings where officers merely disseminate information prohibit other positions from being discussed, voted upon and officially recommended by the bodies.
13. When elected positions such as officers, District Reps, and functional chapter leaders become available in the middle of a term, there should be a special election.
Typically Unity Caucus replaces its officials by having them retire or move to a different position in the middle of a term. This gives the Unity dominated Executive Board the opportunity to choose the replacement long before there is an actual election. For example, Sandra Feldman resigned as UFT president to become AFT president in 1998, and the Executive Board picked Weingarten to replace her as UFT president; Weingarten didn’t have to face the voters until 1999. The NY Teacher then printed a series of publicity pieces about Weingarten, giving her a lot of name recognition and good press. When she ran as an incumbent in the election, she was at a huge advantage over potential opponents. The same sequence is now occurring with Michael Mulgrew, who the Executive Board has installed as interim president until the March 2010 elections.
14. Make the Delegate Assembly a legislative body where officers and Executive Board members have limits on how long they can speak. Often the regular business of the agenda is not taken up until way past 5:00 p.m., which leaves very little time for delegates to discuss the motions. The president’s and other reports must be limited so that the Delegate Assembly can truly be a legislative body.
15. There should be a majority rather than a 2/3 vote required to put motions on the current and next month’s Delegate Assembly agenda.
16. Limit the total percentage of retiree delegates at the Delegate Assembly. There are now 300 retired DA delegates, who comprise 11% of the total and who have a disproportionate say on working conditions.
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
PBS Stands By Merrow Report on Eva Moskowitz Tactics to Drive Unwanted Kids Out of Her Schools
I think Merrow did not go nearly far enough. Forget attrition rates. Just count how many kids start kindergarten and last until the testing grades. And as Leonie has pointed out (Leo Challenges Eva at AFT/Shanker Institute), the UFT/AFT calls for them to backfill negates the question of where the backfill will come from.
Sure public schools have attrition rates due to kids moving etc - not easy to push kids out of public schools because parents have someplace higher to go. Success parents have nowhere to go.
And with another closing of Success Schools for a bogus teacher rally today, there should be some more exposure of these characters. Will the press take a quiet poll of these teachers and ask them if they would like to be in a union?
PBS issued a "clarification."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/
Sure public schools have attrition rates due to kids moving etc - not easy to push kids out of public schools because parents have someplace higher to go. Success parents have nowhere to go.
And with another closing of Success Schools for a bogus teacher rally today, there should be some more exposure of these characters. Will the press take a quiet poll of these teachers and ask them if they would like to be in a union?
PBS issued a "clarification."
PBS NewsHour Clarification
On October 12, 2015, the PBS NewsHour aired a report
from veteran education reporter John Merrow, based on nearly a year of
reporting, about suspension policies of young children and one
successful charter school network in New York City. The NewsHour stands
by the report. However, the CEO of Success Academy, Eva Moskowitz, has
since raised objections
to two specific issues in Mr. Merrow’s report. She protests that she
was not given the opportunity to respond to one family’s comments in the
story and she asserts that Mr. Merrow’s reporting about attrition rates
is incorrect.
Mr. Merrow’s report was not about any particular child but about suspension policy. The reporting included conversations with nearly a dozen families about their young children’s suspensions from Success Academy, as well as other sources, including one within Success Academy. Most of these sources were unwilling to go on camera. In their interview Mr. Merrow asked Ms. Moskowitz for her response to the information he had gathered from these sources, and she was given ample time to respond.
Only one family was willing to talk on camera, but the mother was not willing to allow Success Academy to release her son’s school records. Ms. Moskowitz should have been given a chance to respond to this family’s comments. The NewsHour regrets that decision.
Ms. Moskowitz also disputes Mr. Merrow’s reporting on Success Academy’s attrition rate. This is a complicated area because charter schools, including Success Academy Charter Schools, calculate attrition differently. Mr. Merrow addressed these disparities by comparing similar time frames and methods for calculating attrition. He used both public numbers and internal documents to calculate a comparison of attrition rates. One of the charter schools in the report calculates attrition by the names of individual children over a 365-day calendar year, from the beginning of one school year to the beginning of the next school year. Success Academy’s data is based on the number of children over the school year, not the calendar year. Mr. Merrow reconciled those numbers fairly and thoroughly.
The fundamental point of Mr. Merrow’s report is about the policy of suspensions of young children. It accurately documents that Success Academy suspends students as young as five- and six-year olds at a greater rate than many other schools, which Ms. Moskowitz does not dispute. Mr. Merrow’s report also explains that Success Academy Charter Schools are achieving superior academic results and are popular among New York area families. While the NewsHour regrets the decision to include that particular mother and child without providing Ms. Moskowitz with an opportunity to respond, the NewsHour stands by the report.
Mr. Merrow’s report was not about any particular child but about suspension policy. The reporting included conversations with nearly a dozen families about their young children’s suspensions from Success Academy, as well as other sources, including one within Success Academy. Most of these sources were unwilling to go on camera. In their interview Mr. Merrow asked Ms. Moskowitz for her response to the information he had gathered from these sources, and she was given ample time to respond.
Only one family was willing to talk on camera, but the mother was not willing to allow Success Academy to release her son’s school records. Ms. Moskowitz should have been given a chance to respond to this family’s comments. The NewsHour regrets that decision.
Ms. Moskowitz also disputes Mr. Merrow’s reporting on Success Academy’s attrition rate. This is a complicated area because charter schools, including Success Academy Charter Schools, calculate attrition differently. Mr. Merrow addressed these disparities by comparing similar time frames and methods for calculating attrition. He used both public numbers and internal documents to calculate a comparison of attrition rates. One of the charter schools in the report calculates attrition by the names of individual children over a 365-day calendar year, from the beginning of one school year to the beginning of the next school year. Success Academy’s data is based on the number of children over the school year, not the calendar year. Mr. Merrow reconciled those numbers fairly and thoroughly.
The fundamental point of Mr. Merrow’s report is about the policy of suspensions of young children. It accurately documents that Success Academy suspends students as young as five- and six-year olds at a greater rate than many other schools, which Ms. Moskowitz does not dispute. Mr. Merrow’s report also explains that Success Academy Charter Schools are achieving superior academic results and are popular among New York area families. While the NewsHour regrets the decision to include that particular mother and child without providing Ms. Moskowitz with an opportunity to respond, the NewsHour stands by the report.
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
Leo Challenges Eva at AFT/Shanker Institute
It is a good thing when Leo and the AFT take on the Evil Madness so openly in the Shanker Institute report: Student Discipline, Race And Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academy Charter Schools. I'm on the move, heading back to New York, so don't have time to read it all - I'm including it below. I noted this criticism from Leonie:
Here's an excerpt:
http://www.shankerinstitute.
At a recent press conference, Success Academy Charter Schools CEO Eva Moskowitz addressed the issue of student discipline. “It is horrifying,” she told reporters, that critics of her charter schools’ high suspension rates don’t realize “that five-year-olds do some pretty violent things.” Moskowitz then pivoted to her displeasure with student discipline in New York City (NYC) public schools, asserting that disorder and disrespect have become rampant.
This is not the first time Moskowitz has taken aim at the city’s student discipline policies. Last spring, she used the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal to criticize the efforts of Mayor Bill De Blasio and the NYC Department of Education to reform the student code of conduct and schools’ disciplinary procedures. Indeed, caustic commentary on student behavior and public school policy has become something of a trademark for Moskowitz.
The National Move to Reform Student Discipline Practices
To understand why, it is important to provide some context. The New York City public school policies that Moskowitz derides are part of a national reform effort, inspired by a body of research showing that overly punitive disciplinary policies are ineffective and discriminatory. Based on this research evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association and School Discipline Consensus Project of the Council of State Governments have all gone on record on the harmful effects of employing such policies. The U.S. Education Department, the U.S. Justice Department, civil rights and civil liberties organizations, consortia of researchers, national foundations, and the Dignity in Schools advocacy coalition have all examined the state of student discipline in America’s schools in light of this research.1
Their findings? Suspensions and expulsions, the most severe forms of school discipline, are being used excessively in American schools, often for such minor infractions such as “talking back” or being out of uniform. Further, these severe punishments are being applied disproportionality to students of color, especially African-American and Latino boys, students with disabilities and LGBT youth.
As a result of these data, the U.S. Education Department and U.S. Justice Department issued guidance to schools, based on their finding that discriminatory uses of suspensions and expulsions were in violation of Title IV and Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Since this guidance came from the federal agencies that are charged with the enforcement of the Civil Rights Act, it added the force of the law to the powerful moral arguments for addressing the problem of discriminatory discipline. School districts and schools, public and charter, took notice. The more progressive minded, such as the new de Blasio administration of the New York City Department of Education, began to reform their disciplinary practices in accord with these regulations. As a consequence, the suspensions and expulsions from New York City’s public schools have been dramatically reduced.
Moskowitz makes no explicit mention of these developments in her attacks on the de Blasio administration, although a careful reading shows that they are a calculated response to them. Instead, with unverifiable anecdotes, cherry-picked statistics, and out-of-context quotations, Moskowitz dismisses New York City’s student discipline reforms as “edu-babble” and “nonsense.”2
In a revealing video interview that accompanied the Wall Street Journal op-ed, editorial board member Mary Kissel launches the conversation by declaring that the “Obama administration wants laxer discipline standards for minorities in public schools.” Moskowitz does not disagree. Under the cover of attacks on the policies and practices of New York City public schools, Moskowitz has delivered a shot across the bow of President Obama, retiring Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and incoming Acting Secretary John King. The message is, if you choose to enforce civil rights law when it comes to discipline in Success Academy charter schools, expect an all-out political war.
The Data on Success Academy Schools
Why would Moskowitz feel the need to lay down a gauntlet in opposition to a president and two secretaries of education who have all been vigorous charter school supporters? For that matter, why take on the entire civil rights community? To answer these questions, I decided to take a look at the data on suspensions from New York City schools, both public and charter. There are three repositories of these data: the Civil Rights Data Collection of the U.S. Education Department; the School Report Cards of the New York State Education Department; and the school discipline data reports of the NYC Department of Education to the City Council, as required by New York City’s Student Safety Act. (The UCLA Civil Rights Project provides a user friendly portal for viewing the federal data and, while the Student Safety Act data is not available on the internet, the New York Civil Liberties Union publishes useful annual Suspension Data Fact Sheets.) With three different repositories of data, one would think that it should be a simple matter to locate accurate information. But the reality is rather different.
Take the data published by the U.S. Education Department: The most recent available dataset is for the school year 2011-12, when the New York City Department of Education was under the administration of Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg’s NYC DoE reported suspension rates of 1.7 percent for secondary school students and 0.3 percent for elementary school students, figures which were far below the seven percent suspension rate it had provided under the Student Safety Act.3
But this inconsistency pales next to the data for Moskowitz’s Success Academy Charter Schools: Across all Success Academy schools, just two suspensions were reported to the U.S. Department of Education for 2011-12. During the same year, hundreds of suspensions were reported to the New York State Education Department, for an overall suspension rate of 17 percent.4
The numbers that Success Academy chose to report to the federal government were not only so radically at variance with those reported to the New York State Department of Education, but also so obviously wrong, as to appear contemptuous of the charter networks’ obligations under federal civil rights law.5
To provide the most complete picture possible of what is happening in both the Success Academy schools and regular New York City public schools, it was necessary to gather data from a number of different sources. Let us start with most recent dataset, for the year 2013-14, which was published late last spring as part of the New York State School Report Cards. According to the state data, in 2013-14, Success Academy Charter Schools had a total of 728 suspensions for a suspension rate of 11 percent, while the New York City public schools had a total of 9617 suspensions for a suspension rate of one percent.
We know that the NYC public school data is understated, however, because (just as in the case of its report to the U.S. Education Department cited above) only the most serious suspensions are ever reported to the New York State Education Department. Upon request, the New York City Department of Education supplied the Shanker Institute with the total number of all suspensions for the 2013-14 school year. These data showed 53,504 suspensions; yielding an annual suspension rate of five percent.6
From the standpoint of Success Academy, therefore, the most charitable reading of these numbers is that the charter school network suspended its students at more than double the rate of the New York City public schools, eleven percent to five percent.7
But these numbers are only the beginning of the story. New York charter school management has defended student suspension rates in their schools that are much higher than those of New York City district schools on the grounds that they educate more students with challenges – students living in poverty, students with special needs, and English Language Learners. The New York State Education Department data includes a fairly robust set of student demographics that make it possible to test this claim by comparing the student demographics of Success Academy charter schools and New York City public schools for the 2013-14 school year.8
In fact, on the most important measures, the student demographics of Success Academy schools indicate a lower need student population than are served by New York City public schools as a whole: while 81 percent of New York City public school students are “economically disadvantaged,” 74 percent of Success Academy students fall into that category; while 18 percent of New York City public school students have “learning disabilities,” 14 percent of Success Academy students fall into that category; and while 15 percent of New York City public school students are English language learners, only 5 percent of Success Academy students fall into that category.9
Thus, insofar as one credits the argument that a student population with greater needs will necessarily have more problems with behavior and more student suspensions, Success Academy schools should be suspending fewer – not more – students than the New York City public schools.
Why Age Matters
There is one more key issue of comparability that is often lost in these discussions: the age of students. As students enter into adolescence, misbehaviors generally increase and disciplinary consequences for those misbehaviors (such as suspensions) tend to climb in number. For a true “apples-to-apples” comparison, we should look at data for students in the same age groups. As it happens, during the years discussed here, Success Academy Charter Schools served no high school students and had very few students in middle school – in fact, over 90 percent of their students were in the elementary school grades of K through 5.
To adequately compare suspension rates in Success Academy Charter Schools with rates in the New York City public schools, we requested that the New York City Department of Education provide the Shanker Institute with a breakdown of student suspensions by grade level: In 2013-14, the elementary school grades had 6,634 suspensions, the middle school grades had 18,873 suspensions and the high school grades had 27,997 suspensions. That is, the elementary school grades accounted for nearly half of all New York City public school students (47 percent), but only 12 percent of all suspensions; the middle school grades accounted for 22 percent of all students, but 35 percent of all suspensions; and the high school grades accounted for 31 percent of all students, but 52 percent of all suspensions. In other words, in 2013-14, there was 1 suspension for every 67 students in the elementary school grades of New York City public schools and one suspension for every 11 students in the middle and high school grades. By contrast, in Success Academy Charter Schools, there was one suspension for every nine students in 2013-14, and these students were overwhelmingly concentrated in the elementary school grades – a higher suspension rate than for New York City public middle and high school students. Shockingly, when students of the same ages were compared, Success Academy Charter Schools was suspending students at a rate roughly seven times greater than in the New York City public schools.10
The Matter of Race
What were the race and ethnicity characteristics of Success Academy’s suspended students? Only the Civil Rights Data Collection of the U.S. Department of Education requires that districts and schools report the race and ethnicity of suspended students; but, as previously noted, since Success Academy reported only two of its hundreds of suspensions to the federal government, we have no direct source of information on this matter. We do know, however, that in the 2013-14 school year, seven of the eighteen Success Academy charter schools (Harlem Success I through V, Bed-Stuy Success I and Bronx Success I) accounted for nearly 90 percent of all suspensions, with suspension rates above the average for all Success Academy schools. In each of those schools, the combined share of African-American and Latino students was in the high 90 percent range.
While Success Academy is on the extreme end of the spectrum, the problem of excessive suspensions for African-American and Latino students runs deep across the charter school sector in New York City, as the Advocates for Children’s report, “Civil Rights Suspended,” has documented.
The challenge posed to Success Academy and similar charter schools by the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education’s guidance on student discipline is serious. To be in conformance with civil rights law, these schools will need to make radical reforms to their “no excuses” school culture and practices. Now that Moskowitz has laid down the gauntlet on this issue, many eyes will be on the Obama administration for its response. Changing policies, practices and cultures to make schools into safe and welcoming places that do not resort to the excessive and discriminatory use of suspensions and expulsions is hard, challenging work.
Educators across the country will be watching closely to see if all schools are required to take it on. If the greatest transgressors of federal civil rights law are given a bye for political reasons, it is hard to see how the law can be successfully enforced anywhere. Public scrutiny of the issue is bound to grow in the wake of John Merrow’s powerful PBS News Hour piece on Success Academy’s suspension policy. The Obama administration’s initiative to end excessive and discriminatory suspensions and expulsions will ultimately stand or fall on its willingness to take on those, such as Moskowitz’s Success Academy Charter Schools, who openly refuse to abide by federal civil rights law.
Perhaps the specter of having to make these student discipline reforms was, by itself, sufficient cause for Moskowitz to take on the Obama administration, Duncan, King and the entire civil rights community. But it is not the only issue; Success Academy’s student discipline policies are also intimately tied to its practice of refusing to “backfill” empty student seats. I will take up the issue of “backfilling” in a follow-up post on Success Academy Public Schools.
*****
ENDNOTES
1 See the work of the U.S. Department of Education, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the Advancement Project, the American Civil Liberties Union, the UCLA Civil Rights Project, Discipline Disparities: A Research to Practice Collaborative, the Atlantic Philanthropies, and the advocacy coalition Dignity in Schools.
2 By way of illustrations, consider the following two examples: First, there is the claim in Moskowitz’s op-ed, repeated in the video interview, that “4 percent of New York City high-school students carry a weapon to school; 2 percent carry a gun.” These statistics do not reflect the actual numbers of students who were found in possession of a weapon in their school – despite the fact that in New York City, the penalty for possession of a weapon in school is a suspension, and thus appears in the suspension data. But it appears that the real numbers were too low to suit Moskowitz’s purposes, since she claims to have obtained her alternative numbers from the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene epidemiological report, “Firearm Deaths and Injuries in New York City,” a report that incorporates data from the NYC Youth Risk Behavior Survey. A fuller examination of this survey provides a different picture of school safety than Moskowitz portrays. Since 1997, the numbers of New York City high school youth who reported carrying a weapon of any sort have fallen by more than half, and the numbers who reported carrying a gun have been halved. Indeed, the rate of weapon and gun carrying among high school age youth in New York City is well below the national average. Moreover, the numbers of youth carrying weapons are not uniformly spread across the city, but concentrated in neighborhoods of high poverty – the South Bronx, Harlem and Central and Northern Brooklyn: the rates of firearm violence (death and injury) among high school and college age youth in these areas were at least twice the City’s average. Now that Success Academy has begun to open its own high schools, one could employ Moskowitz’s logic in this op-ed to Success Academy charter high schools located in its areas of concentration in the South Bronx, Harlem and Central and Northern Brooklyn, and conclude that 8-10 percent of their students would be carrying a weapon in school. It is a safe bet that when it comes to assessing the safety in her own schools, the CEO of Success Academy will be returning to the statistics of students actually found in possession of a weapon in school that she was so quick to disregard in discussing public high schools.
Second, Moskowitz mocks the use of “restorative practices” in New York City public schools by ridiculing a quote from a website, which has no connection either to New York City schools or to any of the significant forces in the movement to reform student discipline. The NYC Department of Education discipline code includes a description of the restorative practices that should be employed in city schools, explaining how practices such as peer mediation can be used to resolve student conflicts and disputes before they escalate into violence. But Moskowitz ignores this authoritative information.
3 New York City public schools distinguish between “Principal” suspensions, used for less serious misconduct and limited to no more than five days of suspension, and “Superintendent” suspensions, used for more serious misconduct and extending for as long as a year. As the name suggests, it is in the authority of the Principal to issue a Principal suspension, but a Superintendent suspension requires the approval of the Superintendent and a more formal and quasi-legal due process hearing conducted by the NYC Department of Education. Under Bloomberg, the NYC Department of Education appears to have been reporting only Superintendent suspensions, which accounted for only 19 percent of all suspensions. Since the U.S. Education Department category is “out of school suspensions,” which would cover any loss of school days, there would not appear to be a plausible reason for reporting only Superintendent suspensions.
4 There were seven Success Academy charter schools which had been in existence long enough to report data to the U.S Education Department for its 2011-12 report: five Harlem Success Academies and two Bronx Success Academies. There is an anomaly in the corresponding New York State Report Card for Bronx Success Academy 2, which is missing data for attendance and suspensions. I therefore calculated the overall figures for Success Academy using the six schools with data. In the next year of the New York State Report Card, which includes data for all seven of the original Success Academy schools and an additional two new schools, the overall suspension rate rose to 19 percent.
5 In the years of the Bloomberg administration, Moskowitz had a close ally on student discipline and other issues leading the NYC Department of Education. Over the course of the decade ending in 2011-12, suspensions in the Bloomberg-run NYC public schools more than doubled. So long as the disciplinary policies of the New York City public schools were increasingly punitive, Success Academy had cover for its own policies. But, with changes in student discipline policies arising under the de Blasio administration and the new leadership at the NYC Department of Education, the Success Academy’s record has become increasingly vulnerable.
6 For the 2013-14 student registers in New York City public schools, I have used the numbers from the Department of Education’s public portal.
7 In her Wall Street Journal op-ed, Eva Moskowitz states that there is an 11 percent suspension rate in Success Academy charter schools, as opposed to a four percent suspension rate in New York City public schools, but does not provide a source for these numbers.
8 There are two missing data points that, if they had been provided, would make the comparison more complete. While the NYSED demographics do include students with disabilities, it does not distinguish between those students with minimal disabilities and those students who have more serious disabilities. And while the NYSED demographics do include a measure of economic disadvantage which is more sophisticated than the crude free and reduced lunch status measure that is often used as a proxy for poverty, it does not break out homelessness, which is the most severe form of economic disadvantage.
9 What is particularly striking about the lower levels of need in the Success Academy student population is that their charter schools have been sited in the historically highest need communities of New York City – Harlem, the South Bronx, and Northern and Central Brooklyn – which should have led to higher, not lower, levels of need. These results would give credence to the claims that Success Academy charter schools have been “creaming” these communities, enrolling a disproportionate number of students that have low levels of need.
10 A more precise estimate would be possible if city, state and federal education authorities required all schools and districts to report their suspensions by grade level. This is a needed policy adjustment.
The continued insistence on the issue of backfilling I think is wrong-headed. Instead we should have data on attrition, which the state refuses to provide. Even if they backfill, does that negate the injustice of kicking out low-achievers? Moreover, if they do start backfilling, that will further disguise how many kids they kick out only to replace them with others. ... Leonie Haimson on Leo Casey's Shanker Institute report on Success Charter DisciplineLeo is Leonie's favorite person in the world as he so often attacks her when she dares to criticize the union's darling partners in crime in the de Blasio admin. When Leonie talks I listen but will take a closer look when I get home later.
Here's an excerpt:
At a recent press conference, Success Academy Charter Schools CEO Eva Moskowitz addressed the issue of student discipline. “It is horrifying,” she told reporters, that critics of her charter schools’ high suspension rates don’t realize “that five-year-olds do some pretty violent things.” Moskowitz then pivoted to her displeasure with student discipline in New York City (NYC) public schools, asserting that disorder and disrespect have become rampant."Sure - suspending a 5 year old who does terrible things ought to work - work getting the parents to pull their kid and out them in a public school.
http://www.shankerinstitute.
Student Discipline, Race And Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academy Charter Schools
This is not the first time Moskowitz has taken aim at the city’s student discipline policies. Last spring, she used the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal to criticize the efforts of Mayor Bill De Blasio and the NYC Department of Education to reform the student code of conduct and schools’ disciplinary procedures. Indeed, caustic commentary on student behavior and public school policy has become something of a trademark for Moskowitz.
The National Move to Reform Student Discipline Practices
To understand why, it is important to provide some context. The New York City public school policies that Moskowitz derides are part of a national reform effort, inspired by a body of research showing that overly punitive disciplinary policies are ineffective and discriminatory. Based on this research evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association and School Discipline Consensus Project of the Council of State Governments have all gone on record on the harmful effects of employing such policies. The U.S. Education Department, the U.S. Justice Department, civil rights and civil liberties organizations, consortia of researchers, national foundations, and the Dignity in Schools advocacy coalition have all examined the state of student discipline in America’s schools in light of this research.1
Their findings? Suspensions and expulsions, the most severe forms of school discipline, are being used excessively in American schools, often for such minor infractions such as “talking back” or being out of uniform. Further, these severe punishments are being applied disproportionality to students of color, especially African-American and Latino boys, students with disabilities and LGBT youth.
As a result of these data, the U.S. Education Department and U.S. Justice Department issued guidance to schools, based on their finding that discriminatory uses of suspensions and expulsions were in violation of Title IV and Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Since this guidance came from the federal agencies that are charged with the enforcement of the Civil Rights Act, it added the force of the law to the powerful moral arguments for addressing the problem of discriminatory discipline. School districts and schools, public and charter, took notice. The more progressive minded, such as the new de Blasio administration of the New York City Department of Education, began to reform their disciplinary practices in accord with these regulations. As a consequence, the suspensions and expulsions from New York City’s public schools have been dramatically reduced.
Moskowitz makes no explicit mention of these developments in her attacks on the de Blasio administration, although a careful reading shows that they are a calculated response to them. Instead, with unverifiable anecdotes, cherry-picked statistics, and out-of-context quotations, Moskowitz dismisses New York City’s student discipline reforms as “edu-babble” and “nonsense.”2
In a revealing video interview that accompanied the Wall Street Journal op-ed, editorial board member Mary Kissel launches the conversation by declaring that the “Obama administration wants laxer discipline standards for minorities in public schools.” Moskowitz does not disagree. Under the cover of attacks on the policies and practices of New York City public schools, Moskowitz has delivered a shot across the bow of President Obama, retiring Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and incoming Acting Secretary John King. The message is, if you choose to enforce civil rights law when it comes to discipline in Success Academy charter schools, expect an all-out political war.
The Data on Success Academy Schools
Why would Moskowitz feel the need to lay down a gauntlet in opposition to a president and two secretaries of education who have all been vigorous charter school supporters? For that matter, why take on the entire civil rights community? To answer these questions, I decided to take a look at the data on suspensions from New York City schools, both public and charter. There are three repositories of these data: the Civil Rights Data Collection of the U.S. Education Department; the School Report Cards of the New York State Education Department; and the school discipline data reports of the NYC Department of Education to the City Council, as required by New York City’s Student Safety Act. (The UCLA Civil Rights Project provides a user friendly portal for viewing the federal data and, while the Student Safety Act data is not available on the internet, the New York Civil Liberties Union publishes useful annual Suspension Data Fact Sheets.) With three different repositories of data, one would think that it should be a simple matter to locate accurate information. But the reality is rather different.
Take the data published by the U.S. Education Department: The most recent available dataset is for the school year 2011-12, when the New York City Department of Education was under the administration of Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg’s NYC DoE reported suspension rates of 1.7 percent for secondary school students and 0.3 percent for elementary school students, figures which were far below the seven percent suspension rate it had provided under the Student Safety Act.3
But this inconsistency pales next to the data for Moskowitz’s Success Academy Charter Schools: Across all Success Academy schools, just two suspensions were reported to the U.S. Department of Education for 2011-12. During the same year, hundreds of suspensions were reported to the New York State Education Department, for an overall suspension rate of 17 percent.4
The numbers that Success Academy chose to report to the federal government were not only so radically at variance with those reported to the New York State Department of Education, but also so obviously wrong, as to appear contemptuous of the charter networks’ obligations under federal civil rights law.5
To provide the most complete picture possible of what is happening in both the Success Academy schools and regular New York City public schools, it was necessary to gather data from a number of different sources. Let us start with most recent dataset, for the year 2013-14, which was published late last spring as part of the New York State School Report Cards. According to the state data, in 2013-14, Success Academy Charter Schools had a total of 728 suspensions for a suspension rate of 11 percent, while the New York City public schools had a total of 9617 suspensions for a suspension rate of one percent.
We know that the NYC public school data is understated, however, because (just as in the case of its report to the U.S. Education Department cited above) only the most serious suspensions are ever reported to the New York State Education Department. Upon request, the New York City Department of Education supplied the Shanker Institute with the total number of all suspensions for the 2013-14 school year. These data showed 53,504 suspensions; yielding an annual suspension rate of five percent.6
From the standpoint of Success Academy, therefore, the most charitable reading of these numbers is that the charter school network suspended its students at more than double the rate of the New York City public schools, eleven percent to five percent.7
But these numbers are only the beginning of the story. New York charter school management has defended student suspension rates in their schools that are much higher than those of New York City district schools on the grounds that they educate more students with challenges – students living in poverty, students with special needs, and English Language Learners. The New York State Education Department data includes a fairly robust set of student demographics that make it possible to test this claim by comparing the student demographics of Success Academy charter schools and New York City public schools for the 2013-14 school year.8
In fact, on the most important measures, the student demographics of Success Academy schools indicate a lower need student population than are served by New York City public schools as a whole: while 81 percent of New York City public school students are “economically disadvantaged,” 74 percent of Success Academy students fall into that category; while 18 percent of New York City public school students have “learning disabilities,” 14 percent of Success Academy students fall into that category; and while 15 percent of New York City public school students are English language learners, only 5 percent of Success Academy students fall into that category.9
Thus, insofar as one credits the argument that a student population with greater needs will necessarily have more problems with behavior and more student suspensions, Success Academy schools should be suspending fewer – not more – students than the New York City public schools.
Why Age Matters
There is one more key issue of comparability that is often lost in these discussions: the age of students. As students enter into adolescence, misbehaviors generally increase and disciplinary consequences for those misbehaviors (such as suspensions) tend to climb in number. For a true “apples-to-apples” comparison, we should look at data for students in the same age groups. As it happens, during the years discussed here, Success Academy Charter Schools served no high school students and had very few students in middle school – in fact, over 90 percent of their students were in the elementary school grades of K through 5.
To adequately compare suspension rates in Success Academy Charter Schools with rates in the New York City public schools, we requested that the New York City Department of Education provide the Shanker Institute with a breakdown of student suspensions by grade level: In 2013-14, the elementary school grades had 6,634 suspensions, the middle school grades had 18,873 suspensions and the high school grades had 27,997 suspensions. That is, the elementary school grades accounted for nearly half of all New York City public school students (47 percent), but only 12 percent of all suspensions; the middle school grades accounted for 22 percent of all students, but 35 percent of all suspensions; and the high school grades accounted for 31 percent of all students, but 52 percent of all suspensions. In other words, in 2013-14, there was 1 suspension for every 67 students in the elementary school grades of New York City public schools and one suspension for every 11 students in the middle and high school grades. By contrast, in Success Academy Charter Schools, there was one suspension for every nine students in 2013-14, and these students were overwhelmingly concentrated in the elementary school grades – a higher suspension rate than for New York City public middle and high school students. Shockingly, when students of the same ages were compared, Success Academy Charter Schools was suspending students at a rate roughly seven times greater than in the New York City public schools.10
The Matter of Race
What were the race and ethnicity characteristics of Success Academy’s suspended students? Only the Civil Rights Data Collection of the U.S. Department of Education requires that districts and schools report the race and ethnicity of suspended students; but, as previously noted, since Success Academy reported only two of its hundreds of suspensions to the federal government, we have no direct source of information on this matter. We do know, however, that in the 2013-14 school year, seven of the eighteen Success Academy charter schools (Harlem Success I through V, Bed-Stuy Success I and Bronx Success I) accounted for nearly 90 percent of all suspensions, with suspension rates above the average for all Success Academy schools. In each of those schools, the combined share of African-American and Latino students was in the high 90 percent range.
While Success Academy is on the extreme end of the spectrum, the problem of excessive suspensions for African-American and Latino students runs deep across the charter school sector in New York City, as the Advocates for Children’s report, “Civil Rights Suspended,” has documented.
The challenge posed to Success Academy and similar charter schools by the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education’s guidance on student discipline is serious. To be in conformance with civil rights law, these schools will need to make radical reforms to their “no excuses” school culture and practices. Now that Moskowitz has laid down the gauntlet on this issue, many eyes will be on the Obama administration for its response. Changing policies, practices and cultures to make schools into safe and welcoming places that do not resort to the excessive and discriminatory use of suspensions and expulsions is hard, challenging work.
Educators across the country will be watching closely to see if all schools are required to take it on. If the greatest transgressors of federal civil rights law are given a bye for political reasons, it is hard to see how the law can be successfully enforced anywhere. Public scrutiny of the issue is bound to grow in the wake of John Merrow’s powerful PBS News Hour piece on Success Academy’s suspension policy. The Obama administration’s initiative to end excessive and discriminatory suspensions and expulsions will ultimately stand or fall on its willingness to take on those, such as Moskowitz’s Success Academy Charter Schools, who openly refuse to abide by federal civil rights law.
Perhaps the specter of having to make these student discipline reforms was, by itself, sufficient cause for Moskowitz to take on the Obama administration, Duncan, King and the entire civil rights community. But it is not the only issue; Success Academy’s student discipline policies are also intimately tied to its practice of refusing to “backfill” empty student seats. I will take up the issue of “backfilling” in a follow-up post on Success Academy Public Schools.
*****
ENDNOTES
1 See the work of the U.S. Department of Education, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the Advancement Project, the American Civil Liberties Union, the UCLA Civil Rights Project, Discipline Disparities: A Research to Practice Collaborative, the Atlantic Philanthropies, and the advocacy coalition Dignity in Schools.
2 By way of illustrations, consider the following two examples: First, there is the claim in Moskowitz’s op-ed, repeated in the video interview, that “4 percent of New York City high-school students carry a weapon to school; 2 percent carry a gun.” These statistics do not reflect the actual numbers of students who were found in possession of a weapon in their school – despite the fact that in New York City, the penalty for possession of a weapon in school is a suspension, and thus appears in the suspension data. But it appears that the real numbers were too low to suit Moskowitz’s purposes, since she claims to have obtained her alternative numbers from the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene epidemiological report, “Firearm Deaths and Injuries in New York City,” a report that incorporates data from the NYC Youth Risk Behavior Survey. A fuller examination of this survey provides a different picture of school safety than Moskowitz portrays. Since 1997, the numbers of New York City high school youth who reported carrying a weapon of any sort have fallen by more than half, and the numbers who reported carrying a gun have been halved. Indeed, the rate of weapon and gun carrying among high school age youth in New York City is well below the national average. Moreover, the numbers of youth carrying weapons are not uniformly spread across the city, but concentrated in neighborhoods of high poverty – the South Bronx, Harlem and Central and Northern Brooklyn: the rates of firearm violence (death and injury) among high school and college age youth in these areas were at least twice the City’s average. Now that Success Academy has begun to open its own high schools, one could employ Moskowitz’s logic in this op-ed to Success Academy charter high schools located in its areas of concentration in the South Bronx, Harlem and Central and Northern Brooklyn, and conclude that 8-10 percent of their students would be carrying a weapon in school. It is a safe bet that when it comes to assessing the safety in her own schools, the CEO of Success Academy will be returning to the statistics of students actually found in possession of a weapon in school that she was so quick to disregard in discussing public high schools.
Second, Moskowitz mocks the use of “restorative practices” in New York City public schools by ridiculing a quote from a website, which has no connection either to New York City schools or to any of the significant forces in the movement to reform student discipline. The NYC Department of Education discipline code includes a description of the restorative practices that should be employed in city schools, explaining how practices such as peer mediation can be used to resolve student conflicts and disputes before they escalate into violence. But Moskowitz ignores this authoritative information.
3 New York City public schools distinguish between “Principal” suspensions, used for less serious misconduct and limited to no more than five days of suspension, and “Superintendent” suspensions, used for more serious misconduct and extending for as long as a year. As the name suggests, it is in the authority of the Principal to issue a Principal suspension, but a Superintendent suspension requires the approval of the Superintendent and a more formal and quasi-legal due process hearing conducted by the NYC Department of Education. Under Bloomberg, the NYC Department of Education appears to have been reporting only Superintendent suspensions, which accounted for only 19 percent of all suspensions. Since the U.S. Education Department category is “out of school suspensions,” which would cover any loss of school days, there would not appear to be a plausible reason for reporting only Superintendent suspensions.
4 There were seven Success Academy charter schools which had been in existence long enough to report data to the U.S Education Department for its 2011-12 report: five Harlem Success Academies and two Bronx Success Academies. There is an anomaly in the corresponding New York State Report Card for Bronx Success Academy 2, which is missing data for attendance and suspensions. I therefore calculated the overall figures for Success Academy using the six schools with data. In the next year of the New York State Report Card, which includes data for all seven of the original Success Academy schools and an additional two new schools, the overall suspension rate rose to 19 percent.
5 In the years of the Bloomberg administration, Moskowitz had a close ally on student discipline and other issues leading the NYC Department of Education. Over the course of the decade ending in 2011-12, suspensions in the Bloomberg-run NYC public schools more than doubled. So long as the disciplinary policies of the New York City public schools were increasingly punitive, Success Academy had cover for its own policies. But, with changes in student discipline policies arising under the de Blasio administration and the new leadership at the NYC Department of Education, the Success Academy’s record has become increasingly vulnerable.
6 For the 2013-14 student registers in New York City public schools, I have used the numbers from the Department of Education’s public portal.
7 In her Wall Street Journal op-ed, Eva Moskowitz states that there is an 11 percent suspension rate in Success Academy charter schools, as opposed to a four percent suspension rate in New York City public schools, but does not provide a source for these numbers.
8 There are two missing data points that, if they had been provided, would make the comparison more complete. While the NYSED demographics do include students with disabilities, it does not distinguish between those students with minimal disabilities and those students who have more serious disabilities. And while the NYSED demographics do include a measure of economic disadvantage which is more sophisticated than the crude free and reduced lunch status measure that is often used as a proxy for poverty, it does not break out homelessness, which is the most severe form of economic disadvantage.
9 What is particularly striking about the lower levels of need in the Success Academy student population is that their charter schools have been sited in the historically highest need communities of New York City – Harlem, the South Bronx, and Northern and Central Brooklyn – which should have led to higher, not lower, levels of need. These results would give credence to the claims that Success Academy charter schools have been “creaming” these communities, enrolling a disproportionate number of students that have low levels of need.
10 A more precise estimate would be possible if city, state and federal education authorities required all schools and districts to report their suspensions by grade level. This is a needed policy adjustment.
Ruminating on the UFT Delegate Assembly, this Saturday's MORE conference and Other Matters
For the record, I don't always agree with everyone in MORE, or everything they do or say. But whether I agree with them or not, they are among the most dedicated unionists I know. A good number of them could have joined Unity, signed the oath, and gone to conventions to vote as Mulgrew instructed. Instead, they opt to lobby for member voice.....
I admire Jia [Lee] for bringing up the resolution, but I knew they would find a way to kill it. Once the Unity person complained of the MORE ad on the back of the resolution, the faithful knew how they were to vote. Then there was her nasty insinuation there was no "union bug" on the paper, as though MORE had the work outsourced to slave labor in some third-world banana republic......
I don't really understand the democracy inherent in a forum in which the chair talks about whatever for three fourths of the meeting, entertains a few questions, and needs to add extra time to allow a single motion. I wonder whether he wants people to come back, or whether he wants to drive them away so as to ensure the "highest decision-making body in the UFT" remains largely a forum for his pontifications and indulgences.
..... ... NYC Educator, DA TakeawayArthur Goldstein has some great stuff in this post. I hate to keep agreeing with this guy - and that he always beats me to the punch on so much good stuff.
With MORE's conference coming up this Saturday, it is good to hear some positive words about MORE given attacks from Unity caucus and the ultra-leftist lone voice in the UFT supporting Unity Caucus about that ridiculous union label thing. I print hundreds of copies of our leaflets on my home copy machine - after often doing the labor of laying them out - and these clowns try to make it look "as though MORE had the work outsourced to slave labor in some third-world banana republic."
This is nothing more than an attempt by Unity and its allies to attack the opposition. So if we put "labor donated" on every leaflet all is OK?
Frankly, I don't always have the space when I lay out a leaflet to make the purists quibblers happy.
And I also agree on the MORE points - no one in MORE is always happy - MORE consists of real people - with different points of view and it is not always easy to try to blend these points into a coherent policy while maintaining democracy - it is always much easier to have a strong man/woman take charge - you know, the way Unity has been run for 60 years.
UFT Democracy Workshop by Fiorillo, Goldstein* and Scott at MORE conference:
Arthur, Michael Fiorillo and I have been internal critics in MORE over some issues. This Saturday we are working together to do a workshop in union democracy -here is a rough description of the workshop:
The UFT has been structured by Unity Caucus in such a way as to enforce a fundamentally undemocratic system. We will review that structure, discuss what type of structure could be created to ensure a more democratically run union, and delve into the issue of whether such reforms can be implemented given the absolute control Unity has over every formal institution. Lurking behind all this is the possibility of losing the agency fee case and how that impacts on the issue of democracy.*attendance depending in scheduling.
MORE on the conference tomorrow.
Here is the MORE Press Advisory.
NEWS ADVISORY: On 10/24 Teachers and Community Unite to Build Platform for New UFT Leadership
FOR PLANNING PURPOSES OR ANNOUNCEMENT
October 20, 2015
Contacts:
Megan Moskop (252) 367-0908
John Antush (917) 734-3907
**News Advisory**
As NYC School Crisis Continues, Teachers Unite with Community to Challenge Unaccountable Union Leadership and Defend Public Education
Movement of Rank-and-File Educators to announce UFT Presidential candidate in bid to unseat union President Michael Mulgrew and his Unity Caucus
.
WHEN: Saturday, October 24, 2015
10am-6pm
RSVP for interviews during the day
WHERE: P.S. 58, The Carroll School
330 Smith Street, Brooklyn, NY
WHAT: Fed up with classroom overcrowding, overuse of standardized testing, and understaffing, New York’s hardworking educators have lost patience with the leadership of the United Federation of Teachers and are coming together with the community to continue building a broad-based movement for change– in their union and in our schools.
The State of our Union, State of our Schools Conference will gather rank-and-file educators, community allies, parents, and students to shape a new vision for high-quality public education and craft a platform for the upcoming UFT elections. The Movement of Rank-and-File Educators (MORE) will announce its candidate for union president at the conference.
WHO: The Movement of Rank-and-File Educators (MORE), is the social justice caucus of the UFT and largest force for change in the union. In the upcoming elections, MORE will challenge Unity Caucus, the bureaucratic political machine that has dominated New York’s teachers’ union for the past 50 years. Over the past decade, Unity has led the UFT into crisis, signing off on harmful policies such as overuse of standardized testing and pay increases that fail to keep pace with inflation, while using union funds to pay UFT President Michael Mulgrew over $260,000 per year and dole out salaries of over $100,000 per year to over 100 Unity Caucus political operatives on UFT staff.
Other conference endorsers are NYCORE- The New York Collaborative of Radical Educators, Change the Stakes, NYC OPTOUT, The Teacher Diversity Committee of New York, The Coalition for Public Education, NYS Stronger Together Caucus, and the Badass Teachers Association.
COMPELLING VISUALS: Cheering crowds, workshop discussions, conversation. Interviews can be arranged with our presidential candidate, parents, teachers, students, and activists upon request.
###
The Movement of Rank and File Educators is the Social Justice Caucus of the United Federation of Teachers. To learn MORE, visit www.morecaucusnyc.org
Eva Moskowitz Violated FERPA in Releasing Student Discipline Data
We can only think of the day when Eva has to do a PERP walk.
By releasing the details of this child’s disciplinary file in the letter below, a child who was interviewed and whose face was shown on the NewsHour, didn’t Eva Moskowitz violate FERPA? Moskowitz completely violated the family's and the student's privacy!
Every child and parent in his present school who recognizes him now has access to his discipline record.
Full letter is posted here: http://bit.ly/1ODDmJ4
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/
Ann.Powell@successacademies.
By releasing the details of this child’s disciplinary file in the letter below, a child who was interviewed and whose face was shown on the NewsHour, didn’t Eva Moskowitz violate FERPA? Moskowitz completely violated the family's and the student's privacy!
Every child and parent in his present school who recognizes him now has access to his discipline record.
Full letter is posted here: http://bit.ly/1ODDmJ4
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/
Ann.Powell@successacademies.
EVA MOSKOWITZ DEMANDS APOLOGY FROM PBS NEWSHOUR FOR INACCURATE REPORTING
Newark Teacher Chastises Randi
Randi Weingarten’s latest pontification in the Huffington Post, “Race in America: Changing Reality by Facing It” was brought to my attention by Schools Matter blog. Her analysis of confronting white privilege is amusing at best. Unbeknownst to Weingarten, there are many white teachers who go every day to poor neighborhoods of color to teach the children. Four cities where the American Federation of Teachers predominates; New York, Chicago, Philadelphia and Newark are famous for the multitudes of school closings in those same neighborhoods.Never forget that Randi went in and worked with Christie to negotiate a Newark teacher contract. Where has that gotten them?
Weingarten claims that “As a woman, as a Jew, as a lesbian and as a labor leader in a time of great anti-union animus,” she has been subjected to bias in our society. As a member of only two of the four aforementioned groups, I would venture a guess that the societal prejudice she has confronted in her glass house pales by comparison to the unrelenting racism suffered by people of color in the United States.
My question is what is Randi Weingarten doing to protect children of color in the United States from losing their schools and their neighborhoods? What is the President of the American Federation of teachers doing to protect the public school teachers she is handsomely paid to represent?
What is Her Highness doing to support public education in these fifty states? Newark, the city of my employment, is being bombarded by charter school expansion plans as enabled by our new Superintendent in cooperation with our traveling Governor. Is Randi Weingarten doing anything to mitigate the damage to the Newark Public Schools? Other than occasionally publishing pabulum, the only entity being advanced by Randi Weingarten is Randi Weingarten.
Abigail Shure
Some Ed Notes blasts from the past.
Oct 19, 2012
“This
agreement is a win for students, a win for teachers and a win for
Newark," American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten said
in a statement Thursday. "It recognizes the quality of educators' work,
values ...
Oct 22, 2012
The
only teachers union representative present was Randi Weingarten of AFT.
Again, I have nothing but respect for Randi, who I think does a fine
job representing teacher concerns in the media. But let's be honest:
Chris ...
Dec 22, 2013
These
two have a long history together. The dynamic works like this: Randi
gives Cami whatever she wants, then complains about Cami exercising the
freedoms that Randi has given her. It's sort of like the dynamic Randi
is ...
Feb 27, 2014
...your
generosity in donating AFT funds to the Teacher Village being built to
house Teach for America novices in Newark could not have come at a
better time.... Newark teacher to AFT President Randi Weingarten (satire
alert).
Jan 29, 2014
I
asked my friend if Randi walked out with her pal Cami. I've been saving
this piece from Schools Matter for the past month that reviews Randi's
history in Newark. I'll comment separately on the impact of the NYSUT
split and ...
Monday, October 19, 2015
UFT Send District Reps to School to Discuss Friedrich - A School Where UFT Protected Awful Principal
This came in from a teacher at a school where there was a horrible principal for years who was protected not only by the DOE but by the UFT. Good luck in getting them to pay dues.
Just found out DR coming next week to my school to discuss Friedrich case.
I guess UFT reps worried about THEIR jobs.
Karma
And how about that principal in the Bronx who made the teachers throw out their desks?
Every report coming in from parents and teachers is that principal Donna Connelly is an all time loser - the kind of
DOE Recycles Failed Principals
Every report coming in from parents and teachers is that principal Donna Connelly is an all time loser - the kind of
case that should have been blaring from the UFT - did the district rep ever go to the schools this recycled lemon has been sent to time and again? I would bet that she has some connections to someone in the DOE and the UFT. Or the UFT doesn't want to step on certain principals due to its cozy relationship to the CSA.
Sunday, October 18, 2015
DOE Recycles Failed Principals
Leonie Haimson reports:
Donna Connelly at Ps 24 in the Bronx has been controversial for years; she was pushed out of ps 3 by parents when my daughter was there, has been despised by teachers and also threw a reporter out of an SLT meeting a few years ago- illegally as the DoE spokesperson later explained.I'm not astonished. It's been going on for decades. Principals can get away with anything.
In her latest craziest move, astonishingly, the DoE spokesperson appears to back her up.
http://nypost.com/2015/10/18/principal-forbid-teachers-to- sit-so-she-threw-out-their- desks/
Saturday, October 17, 2015
Today: Jia Lee, Jamaal Bowman, Michael Flanagan and others Headline Oct. 17 Ed Justice Conference
Jamaal Bowman: Incredibly blessed to be a part of tomorrow. Almost 600 strong working on the most important issues in and related to education. Another major step toward the schools and society that we and our children deserve. It's on!Jia Lee, a non-stop energizer bunny who is all over the place, is helping headline this conference. I'm so sad to miss this today.
There has been no greater fighter against the deformers than Jia, who has the support of teachers and many parents who have deep outreach into the schools.
Call to Educational Justice!! Lean In for this NYC Conference
Daiyu Suzuki, Jia Lee, Jamaal Bowman, Michael Flanagan, Hugh Jordine
Saturday, October 17, 2015 from 8:30 AM to 5:30 PM (EDT)
New York, NY
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/
In New York State, the
implementation of Common Core and high stakes testing have created
unprecedented inequity. Test and punish policies disproportionately
effect students of color, students with disabilities, English Language
Learners and students living in poverty. School communities, from early
childhood to higher education, survive on varying spectrums of the
public school system, the most dire being school closures in the poorest
communities. The root forces of compliance based policies and
unyielding standardization have left very little room for common sense
in collaborative problem solving. Parents, students, teachers,
administrators, professors and concerned citizens have pulled together
to uncover, expose and demand the source of inequities be put to an end.
In the last twenty years, we have faced unprecedented policies that clearly indicate strong market forces vying for public school dollars. These policies have not lead to results! Our communities continue to be downtrodden, our students continue to suffer, and parents continue to be silenced. The time is now to come together. Parents, teachers, students and community activist need to come together as one collective voice to impact how public education moves forward in the 21st century. We need all of you at the table for this historic event.
In the last twenty years, we have faced unprecedented policies that clearly indicate strong market forces vying for public school dollars. These policies have not lead to results! Our communities continue to be downtrodden, our students continue to suffer, and parents continue to be silenced. The time is now to come together. Parents, teachers, students and community activist need to come together as one collective voice to impact how public education moves forward in the 21st century. We need all of you at the table for this historic event.
JOIN US for this strategy focused day to discuss, connect the issues and strategize to push back against:
Profit driven privatization, top-down & oppressive decision making at all levels of education
Test Driven, rather than student driven, instruction and programming
Teacher evaluations based on high stakes standardized tests & Demonization of the teacher’s union
Increasing segregation in our public schools
Profit driven privatization, top-down & oppressive decision making at all levels of education
Test Driven, rather than student driven, instruction and programming
Teacher evaluations based on high stakes standardized tests & Demonization of the teacher’s union
Increasing segregation in our public schools
Activism is sparking
in many different ways to empower public school stakeholders. The
unforeseen consequences of privatization efforts have led to resistance
in pockets throughout the city. The opt out movement, restorative
justice practices and joined efforts to engage our elected officials are
just a few. At the same time, there’s a sense of urgency to build a
citywide community movement.
In an effort to enact true democratic decision making, the grassroots organizations from around the city and state will begin the 2015-2016 school year by joining together in a conference. Registrants will receive the full agenda. We need you there!
In an effort to enact true democratic decision making, the grassroots organizations from around the city and state will begin the 2015-2016 school year by joining together in a conference. Registrants will receive the full agenda. We need you there!
Friday, October 16, 2015
Do We Want Success Charters To Abuse 4 Year-olds Too? Eva Outrage Continues - Wants Public Pre-K Money But No Oversight
Eva doesn't want oversight because of what people will see.
Leonie Haimson Comments:
Leonie Haimson Comments:
Success charters won't sign contracts to allow city to oversee its preK program yet presumably wants to continue to receive city funds for that purpose.Leonie questions why the city even wants to have Success run a pre-k program where they can suspend kids they don't want so the parents pull them out of the school and allow them to cream even further.
The city doesn't have to grant them these funds but according to this article wants as many charters as possible to have preK.
Question I have is given Success charters Abusive treatment of Kindergarten students as well documented in the recent PBS segment why should the city want them to have preK?
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/city-hall/2015/10/ 8579889/pre-k-contract-sparks- new-fight-between-success- academy-and-city-h
Why Retirees Vote Unity - The UFT Retro Pay Story Still Resonating as Retirees Get Theirs
The UFT message to pregnant moms: if you are pregnant and not working when the next retro is due - screw you - or rather, you should have waited to screw until you got your retro.
And so it did so once again - retirees did get their retro, teachers in leave did not. We are hearing about the Queens borough office maternity liason for the UFT - no one seems to be naming - and shaming her - publicly. (Someone leave a comment with her name.)
Arthur is on the case at NYC Educator
And check out this Queens Maternity workshop for April 2016 - Join us and get answers to all your maternity and leave questions.
We know the answer to the retro question already -- hey, if you are pregnant and not working when the next retro is due - screw you - or rather, you should have waited to screw until you got your retro.
Michael Fiorillo has left a new comment on your post "Comments on UFT Sellout of Teachers on Leave
If you read Ed Notes you know my position is for the opposition to totally ignore the retiree issue related to their voting in UFT elections - at least until an opposition can show it can win enough votes from working UFT members in an election. Unity Caucus takes care of its retirees.Our faux Tough Guy President's pathetic excuse is further belied by the fact that he made sure that retirees were made whole before anyone.
Not to suggest they were undeserving - we all deserved that money back in '09, and should have been made whole immediately, with interest - but where was their "continuous employment?"
Then again, what does he care? Like the so-called reformers he often shills for - witness his continuing support for Common Core, test-based evaluations and expedited firings - or passively allows to loot and pillage, it's obvious to me this man thinks teachers are chumps.
And so it did so once again - retirees did get their retro, teachers in leave did not. We are hearing about the Queens borough office maternity liason for the UFT - no one seems to be naming - and shaming her - publicly. (Someone leave a comment with her name.)
Arthur is on the case at NYC Educator
Callousness or Compassion?: Retro On Leave
The Queens maternity liason for the U.F.T. rose to oppose the resolution. First, she objected to the printing of the resolution on a page containing advertisements for an oppostion caucus, free of the "union bug." Even the parliamentarian, himself, could not say whether it was permissible or not.
Wait - let me get this straight. She is objecting to a caucus for putting forth a resolution, something that has been done for the entire 45 years I have been involved? And no union bug - given that opposition caucuses have to cobble together their own printers and copy machines to be able to afford printing materials - or go to copy centers to print? I printed almost 400 copies of a double-sided leaflet at the last chapter leader meeting on my own copy machine - which left it wheezing and coughing and demanding to form its own union.
I get it - let's try to make the opposition spend a fortune on printing as a way to shut them down.
Arthur continues:
Then, she proceeded to oppose the motion on the grounds that people on leave must know what they're getting themselves into. I would guess, however, if one is fighting off a deadly disease or surviving brain surgery, one doesn't have much of a choice. If one is about to give birth, although the situation is usually infinitely more joyous, one may also lack much choice.One of our new MORE moms missed the retro by returning to work a day or 2 later.
The Queens liason further stated that the resolution seemed vague and that all persons on leave would be made "whole again" when the next retro check rolls around, provided he or she has returned to work. It is my understanding, however, that if one dies, not only will one never be made "whole again," but one's spouse, children or family will never be made "whole again" in more ways than one. The money once earned will be gone. Perhaps, retro is not a "God-given right," but the Union might have taken further pains to fight for it as a contractual right for those who might need it most.
The arguments used by the maternity liason struck me as callous, particulary to our colleagues fending off life-threatening illnesses and those who are the parents of children, much like the ones we have dedicated our lives to teach. So many members of our profession are women and so many are mothers. The system is stacked against them and the Union seems unphased--even the Queens Maternity Liason. Given that all members were asked to create a sea of pink shirts at the October Delegate Assembly in recognition of breast cancer, the callousness was magnified many times over. It felt like a flood.
And check out this Queens Maternity workshop for April 2016 - Join us and get answers to all your maternity and leave questions.
We know the answer to the retro question already -- hey, if you are pregnant and not working when the next retro is due - screw you - or rather, you should have waited to screw until you got your retro.
Maternity Workshop (Queens)Try this common core math question - if you are pregnant in April when do you have to deliver and be back in time to get your retro?
Date:April 14, 2016
Time:4:00 pm - 6:00 pm
Location:
UFT Queens borough office
97-77 Queens Blvd.
Rego Park, NY
US
Preregistration is required. Walk-ins will not be admitted. RSVP by emailing kjordan@uft.org.
Thursday, October 15, 2015
Rally of Charter School Teachers, Most of Whom Secretly wish they had a union - even one like the UFT
...considering the extraordinarily high pressure work environment at Success Academy that is also verified by job review sites, it is hard to believe that very many of the promised teachers for next week’s rally feel comfortable declining to participate... Daniel KatzCan we take a secret ballot of all those teachers attending the rally asking if they would like to be in a union?
Daniel Katz lays it out:
Eva Moskowtiz is Out of Control
I don’t know about you, but when my children’s unionized public school teachers take a half day, it is because they are in professional development workshops and related activities. They certainly are not being taken from their schools to a rally organized by a lobbying group funded specifically to increase their influence with lawmakers in City Hall and in Albany. In fact, try to imagine this scenario: Chancellor Farina organizes a half day of work for all city schools and then coordinates a rally for public schools with the UFT on the same day and 1000s of public school teachers, rather than using the half day for professional development, show up near city hall to provide the optics.I love that Eva always goes too far. She is her ultimate worst enemy.
Katz:
Fresh off their rally with charter school parents and students on October 7th, “Families” For Excellent Schools has announced that they will hold another rally on Wednesday the 21st of October. This rally, which will be held in Manhattan’s Foley Square, will reportedly feature nearly 1,000 charter school teachers predominantly from Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academy network. While some teachers from Achievement First, Uncommon Schools, and KIPP are expected to be present, Ms. Moskowitz’s workforce will be the primary participants, and the network just so happens to have a scheduled half school day so that teachers can show up to the rally for the purpose of pressuring law makers into allowing more charter schools in the city. Chew on that for a moment: a scheduled half day of school. A political rally. The teachers in attendance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)