The tabloid press in New York City, which has consistently supported corporate reform, such as charters and high-stakes testing, regularly claims in its editorials that the parents’ opt out movement is secretly funded and manipulated by teachers’ unions.
This is absolutely untrue. There are teachers involved in the opt out movement, but as individuals and parents, not as representatives of their unions. When Karen Magee, the president of the New York State teachers’ union, endorsed opt out last spring, right before the testing started, it was big news. (My blog got the biggest one-day readership in its history [about 140,000 views in one day] when I reported Magee’s decision).
The New York City United Federation of Teachers never endorsed opt out, never funded it.
Please, editorial writers for the New York Post, the New York Daily News, and yes, even the New York Times, please take note: The opt out movement is parent-led, parent-organized, and depends on parents for its energy and passion. It is not union-led, union-funded, or union-controlled. In short, the opt out movement is a grassroots uprising against the absurd emphasis on standardized tests that consume instructional time without any benefit to students and without providing any useful information to teachers.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I would include Long Island’s rag…. Newsday.
Easier to blame the unions – the default position, then to acknowledge the real reasons behind the movement.
If this is a totally parent-led revolution that doesn’t need the imprimatur of authority figures to work, then why are advocates and special-interest groups assembled at City Hall right now complaining that the NYC DOE is suppressing and / or not actively encouraging opt-out? Parent-driven is parent-driven; you don’t need principals and teachers to tell you what to do.
Right?
As a teacher I strongly support the opt out movement. This over emphasis on standardized test has no educational value for our students, is ethically wrong from an educators pov., and is detrimental to children’s emotional and physical health (read the American Journal of Pediatrics). In addition, testing cost Florida $100 million this year.
I laugh when these ultra wealthy groups say the the teachers are just greedy, unionized people who are in teaching for the money. Please, JEB makes more money giving a speech than I do in a year.
This is particularly sad since Jeb really has nothing to say. He trades on his name and follows the money.
Tim, I fail to see your point. Why would not the parents (who also vote, pay taxes that pay the salaries of the people at the DOE) and know that DOE’s policies affect their children — why would they NOT be demanding that DOE change its stance on opt out? Asking your leaders (doing thing A) to change and start doing thing B doesn’t mean that you are somehow secretly led by them — it means that you are asking them to change! What am I missing?
Tim, it’s called coalition-building, and is politics 101. But you already knew that, and decided to ignore it.
Your buzz words – “advocates” and “special interests,” unlike those selfless hedge fund backers of your precious charter schools – gives your game away.
America’s best hope is proactive unions (in every sphere). They represent millions of people who, if acting collectively, can wrestle the nation from its oligarchs. Conservative WaPo columnist, Kathleen Parker, quoted an analyst this week, “…the military and Silicon Valley may be the only institutions left that are capable of governing”. Wall Street, the Koch’s and multinational corporations destroyed democracy. If not the grassroots organization of worker collectives, who will be the countervailing force to hedge fund, corporate, and tech mogul sociopaths?
Not only has the UFT not supported opt-out, it has essentially functioned as a co-manager (something it has a long history of doing) of so-called reform and the testing-industrial complex, by warning teachers about the dangers of using their First Amendment rights, and by saying it would not defend teachers who exercised them in regard to opting out.
After all, a few years ago Michael Mugrew, the embarrassing firgurehead who pretends to run the UFT while Weingarten collaborates with so-called reform from Washington, threatened to punch in the face anyone who would take his precious Common Core standards away.
As for NYSUT’s endorsement of opt-out, it’s an empty soundbite intended to misdirect teachers and make them think the UFT/AFT hasn’t been complicit in this process all along. Mulgrew continues to tell UFT members they are better off with an statewide evalution system – unchanged despite the deceptive hype otherwise – that is 50% based on tests.
Since when did teachers who in this case might be whistle-blowers lose their 1st Amendment rights?
Well, if you’re threatened with disciplinary action for speaking out against the tests, or informing parents of their right to opt-out (a common occurrence), that’s an abridgement of your right to free speech, no?
And isn’t the protection of free speech won of the justifications for due process (tenure)?
As public employees, teachers do not have the right to speak out against district policies in any way that could interfere with their ability to conduct normal operations (i.e. testing).
All public employees have limited free speech rights in this regard.
Totally disagree with the premiss that teachers don’t have the right to speak out on testing. Teachers are the ones in the classroom and have in my opinion a moral obligation to speak out on policies that many feel are harmful to children. Education has been hijacked by the super wealthy in order to privatize it and feed their coffers even more from public tax dollars. The idea that the wealthy can also use their wealth to control politicians and create policies that censor teachers is offensive to put it mildly. Ultimately it is the vast inequality in income and spectacular wealth that is enabling these destructive policies. Angry voters know something is wrong. I hope in the long run the needs of the many will override the greed of the few at the ballot box.
Limited in the workplace, only.
Micheal
Limited free speech rights of public employees is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of LAW as established through Supreme Court rulings. You can disagree with the LAW but if you violate it your school district has the right to discipline or dismiss you.
However you do have full free speech rights to speak out against any district policy IF you voice your opinion as a citizen regarding a “matter of public concern”. And your comments must be made outside of school hours. It is acceptable to speak at public BOE meetings and write letters to the editor of your local paper – but only as a concerned citizen. Your district still could bring you up on charges if they deemed your identity as a teacher overrides your identity as a citizen.
I tried to get a bill sponsored in The NY legislature that would guarantee the full free speech rights of teachers regarding what many of us perceive as the misuse or even abuse of tests that were designed to produce widespread failure. The state senator (Amedore) I met with had no interest in sponsoring the legislation. I also met with Assemblywoman Fahy seeking support of legislation that would allow teachers to receive conscientious objector status and exemption from administering the Pearson tests. She had no interest remarking that teachers had to be accountable for their teaching.
RageAgaainstTheTestocracy,
What labor rights Americans still have were not won by passively following oppressive laws (say, against picketing), so, though you may be correct as a matter of law, that’s not the entire point.
The Supreme Court has “settled’ many cases in favor of capital and management, especially in recent decades, but that should not be seen as the last word; sometimes politics follows the law, sometimes the law follows politics. This is an instance where the professional judgement of teachers and their free speech rights should be fought for by individuals and the unions, and not passively surrendered with legalistic rationales.
Good point — after all, there is nothing about “Free Speech Zones” in the Bill
of Rights.
“Tabloid press in NY city” is redundant.
Just call it the “press in NY city”
Tabloid is understood by pretty much everyone with a clue.
Reblogged this on Crazy Normal – the Classroom Exposé.
The individuals or groups behind opt-out are beside the point. I’m sure teachers wish Magee had supported it from the get-go, instead of being way too late to the “party”.
And whether it was a completely parent-lead, grass roots movement is worrying about the trees and ignoring the forest.
The focus should be on why the opt-out movement started in the first place. Prior to Cuomo’s obsession with winning Race to the Top money ($700 million), and prior to the NCLB waiver offer from USDOE, no one had very strong opposition to the 12 years of 3 to 8 math and ELA testing under NCLB. AYP and the hoops from NYSED for violations were a nusiance and the stigma of “SINI” status was demoralizing.
WHY the sudden move to thwart federally required testing in NYS?
Let me count the ways:
1) Introduction of Common Core standards which included the dreaded EngageNY curriculum and related activities and HW; especially the convoluted approach to math.
2) Pearson math and ELA tests which intentionally produced hyper-failure rates using flawed test design and arbitrary cut scores selected to produce the 70% fialure rate predicted by John King.
3) The threat of data mining student test information from inBloom.
4) Teacher APPR plans which unfairly tied test scores to evaluation.
5) The threat of denying tenure and firing “ineffective” teachers using said test scores
trashinhg best practices in favor of heavy duty test prep and a narrowing of educational opportuniites.
6) The John King/Meryl Tisch “We’re NOT Listeng Tour” and the arrogant and dismissive affect which infuriated parents in attendance.
7) Social media and blogs used to spread the word regarding a completely fabricated narrative on NY’s failing schools – and they had the completely fabricated test scores to prove it.
8) The single most important factor: LOVE. Parents love for their children and parental instinct to protect their children from institutional abuse.
Same here in NJ.
Parent led.
We welcome the support of teachers and also recognize that teachers can be parents, too!
I also think parents and educators should work in coalition wherever possible on shared issues.
I think this whole “union led” baloney is meant to split natural constituencies on public ed support–like parents should NEVER agree with unions.
It’s an attempt to fracture support for public education.
Forget those papers.
Opt out is parent led AND parents and teachers can stand together against testing.
Makes me want to become a teacher and join a union!
What I think I see happening is that when standardized test reform policies start to hit schools in middle class+ communities, then you start to see parent pushback and opt outs. If the opt out movement were truly a union-driven cause, then you would probably see more lower income communities participating in opting out by this point.
YES. It’s true that the most effective movements against testing and reform-fanatic school boards have been coming from the wealthier districts which surround our city’s inner-city schools. We can simply hope that they might become well organized and move into our poorest buildings.
Many suburban parents are educated and tuned into what is going on in the schools and the state. They have witnessed the impact of the stress and anxiety all this mindless testing has caused their children. They know their children, and they know what they can do. When they get results that tell them that their children are “not cutting the muster,” they know this is fake, and they will revolt to defend their children. Good for them! It is the only way to send the state the message they are on the wrong track.
As an informed parent who supported the opt out movement LONG before Magee’s endorsement, I will continue to refuse high-stakes standardized tests for my child.
The test-and-punish corporate reform agenda WILL end. Parents are continuing to learn facts instead of blindly following main stream media rhetoric and false claims.
Editorial writers for the New York Post, New York Daily News, and New York Times repeatedly UNDERESTIMATE and irresponsibly MISINTERPRET parents who are CHOOSING to opt their children out of harmful high-stakes standardized tests. I am a parent who respects teachers! I am also a parent who makes decisions for her children based on facts AND is willing to take a stand for the future of public education. I HAVE NOT been coerced or paid by a union to do so.
Until there is REAL change in NYS classrooms with the child at the CENTER of all decision making, OPT OUT!
Diane is absolutely correct – the Opt Out movement is parent-led and parent-organized … the UFT supports parents right to Opt Out and has not taken a position. First of all, the First Amendment rights of teachers in their role as teachers is different from the role of teachers as citizens, There has been considerable case law.
https://mets2006.wordpress.com/2015/12/21/freedom-of-speech-outside-of-the-classroom-protected-versus-unprotected-speech-when-is-teacher-speech-job-related-or-citizen-speech/
In the last year of Bloomberg when teachers in NYC were only rated by principals 2.7% of teachers received unsatisfactory ratings – last year using the multiple measures that included test scores only 1% of teacher received ineffective ratings.
Yes , the current tests are flawed; however we need a system that both fairly assesses teachers and provides useful and timely assessment information.
In NYC the opt outs were heavily concentrated in a small number of high achieving schools, quite different from school outside of NYC.
mets2006,
The UFT’s claim that it supports parent’s right to opt-out is almost on par with Michelle Rhee’s claim that she’s “agnostic” about charter schools.
Their claims of opposition to high-stakes tests are bogus, a rear-guard action to deflect attention away from their enabling of so-called reform for years, whether it’s mayoral control of the schools, atacks on seniority and tenure, charters (they opened their own, in a deluded effort to impress Eli Broad and Bill Gates, co-located in a public school), or continuing political support for politicians who’ve proven themselves to be enemies of public education. These are the same people who gushed about working with the discredited and incompetent John King as head of the federal department of education, who almost single-handedly brought about the opt-out movement with his contemptuous (and thus uncharacteristically honest and heart-felt) treatment of concerned parents.
Unity Caucus, which has controlled the UFT for over half a century, is solely concerned with maintaining its power and perks (such as double pensions), and has stood by, when not accepting money and collaborating, while teachers and public education have been scapegoated and attacked.
They’ll do anything to maintain their “seat at the table,” a table where teachers, students and public education itself are the main course.
Oh, and those tests provide neither timely nor useful assessment information. That’s something real teachers, not posers like John King and Randi Weingarten, do.
If opt-out is desirable shouldn’t the union use its power to help the movement grow and defeat the privatizers? The tabloids that accuse the union as leading the opt-out movement cleverly send the signal that it is wrong, and worse, self-serving to fight for what any experienced educator knows is the right course of action. With the UFT’s support of CC, (recall Mulgrew’s “I’ll punch the CC opponents in the face” comment) along with their silence on opt-out it is clear that the UFT leadership simply wants to avoid the fight even if it would be the right thing to do. And, with threat of losing its guaranteed revenue stream on hold for now (Scalia’s death) why bother?
If opt-out is desirable shouldn’t the union use its power to help the movement grow and defeat the privatizers?
Do you think there is widespread agreement among union members for opting out?
The problem is that if the local powers that be choose to punish a school for having too many student opt outs, then it might be questionable if a lower income community would feel empowered to fight back effectively. I think it goes beyond what teachers’ unions can control. If a teachers’ union were to endorse opting out in a lower income community, that invites moneyed interests to move in and identify the opting out as the reason that the schools are failing, and fund a candidate who would run in opposition to teachers’ union.
What can happen in a middle class community is that a parent could choose to run for school board at the next election and make an issue of it. If enough school board members win their seats with that kind of backing and sentiment among voters, then that view determines how the superintendent and administration governs. I think in a middle class community it would be harder for an outside interest to gain traction.
When Harvard’s Roland Fryer can claim that his children, in suburban Boston, will benefit from Shakespeare but, urban children should be tested everyday (Deutsch 29 blog) and, he faces no repercussions, there is an implicit demand that self-anointed “reformers” face condemnation from the 99%.
The 99% is finally starting to get it after so many years of allowing themselves to be abused by the 1% since Reagan.
Free Speech Rights of Teachers?
The following are a series of excerpts from various articles concerning the free speech rights of teachers as public employees. This information is intended to shed some light on the general sense of fear that many teachers are feeling in regards to speaking out against the federal test-and-punish reform movement. I am a teacher, not a lawyer, but perhaps this information will help some teachers of conscience make a more informed decision about voicing their concerns about what many of us perceive as the harmful effects of the federally coerced Common Core standards and the required companion assessments, as well as linking said scores to teacher evaluations. In the opinion of many educators, this toxic mix of bad educational policies are undermining classroom environments and often constraining the professional judgment of teachers and limiting or use of best practices.
From the ACLU:
Teachers do not forfeit the right to comment publicly on matters of public importance simply because they accept a public school teaching position. Teachers cannot be fired or disciplined for statements about matters of public importance unless it can be demonstrated that the teacher’s speech created a substantial adverse impact on school functioning.
A teacher appears to speak for the school district when he or she teaches, so the district administration has a strong interest in determining the content of the message its teachers will deliver. Washington courts have upheld the authority of school districts to prescribe both course content and teaching methods. Courts in other jurisdictions have ruled that teachers have no free speech rights to include unapproved materials on reading lists.
Depending on the precise form of message displayed on the teachers’ clothing, a school may have legitimate concern that a teacher’s display of a political message is more likely than a student’s to disrupt the school’s intended educational message. This right may be limited only if there is good reason to believe that the speech would cause a substantial and material disruption to education or violate the rights of others. Washington courts have not considered the question, but courts in other jurisdictions have differed over whether teachers have the same right as students to display personal political messages on their clothing. In one case, a court upheld a dress code that prevented teachers from wearing political buttons in the classroom because school districts have legitimate authority to “dissociate themselves from matters of political controversy.”
From the New York State Association of School Attorneys:
School employees’ right to free speech appears limited when job-related.
Does a school employee’s right to free speech stop at the schoolhouse door? While the outcomes of employee disciplinary cases and other cases involving adverse job actions always depend on the facts, court rulings suggest that there has been a deterioration of public employees’ rights to free speech in the workplace. Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2006 ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos, courts have been taking a different approach when public employees claim to be protected by the First Amendment in connection with an adverse job action. All such lawsuits now involve an examination of whether the employee was speaking pursuant to his or her job duties. According to Garcetti, if speech was made as a result of an employee’s job duties, no First Amendment protection applies (see sidebar below). For school districts, the change raises a question that is not always easily answered: What do the “job duties” of a specific school employee entail? Some New York courts have closely examined the employee’s “actual duties” as opposed to the employee’s job description in an effort to afford the most First Amendment protection. Nevertheless, the Garcetti decision appears to have made it harder for public employees to successfully assert First Amendment protection.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which has jurisdiction over all of New York State, made this ruling about free speech rights: “The general principle … is that, when a public employee airs a complaint or grievance, or expresses concern about misconduct, to his or her immediate supervisor or pursuant to a clear duty to report imposed by law or employer policy, he or she is speaking as an employee and not as a citizen.” In light of Garcetti, “the First Amendment does not protect the employee’s speech from discipline or retaliation by the employer,” the court said. The court continued: In such circumstances, the employer is free to “discipline” the employee without violating the employee’s First Amendment rights. If, however, the employee goes outside of the established institutional channels in order to express a complaint or concern, the employee is speaking as a citizen, and the speech is protected by the First Amendment.
For instance, the Second Circuit ruled that statements by a special education counselor to administrators about the lack of physical education and art classes at a satellite BOCES facility were made within the scope of employment and were not protected by the First Amendment. On the other hand, conversations with other teachers about the same issues were not part of any official duty. Therefore, a teacher might be able to prevail in a free-speech defense against any alleged retaliation for critical comments about the school made to colleagues but not if the adverse job action stemmed from similar comments made in the line of duty.
From Joshana Jones, Esq. Atlanta, GA:
Public school teachers are in a unique position. They are employees of the state and therefore school districts have an interest in making sure that messages from teachers are in line with the goals and vision of the district.
The following factors will help a teacher understand if their free speech is protected:
1) The speech must touch on a matter of public concern
2) The teacher’s speech must outweigh the district’s interest in efficiency. The courts may consider any of the following:
a) The effect of the speech on the harmony of the staff
b) Whether the speech has a detrimental impact on working relationships
c) Whether the speech interferes with the normal operation of the employer’s business
The Pickering Balance Test:
Essentials of the “Pickering Balancing Test”
Pickering v Board of Education, 391 US 563
The so-called Pickering Test is applied in balancing the interests of a public employer with its employees’ right to Free Speech and requires the court’s consideration of the following:
1. Did the individual demonstrate that his or her speech address a matter or matters of public interest and concern?
2. Did the individual demonstrate that his or her speech was a significant or motivating factor in the employer’s decision?
3. Did the court balance the interests of the individual commenting on matters of public concern as a citizen and the public employer’s interest in “promoting the efficiency of public service?”
From Sherrod v, School Board of Palm Beach County, FL
Protected Speech
In determining the threshold issue of whether a public employee has engaged in speech entitled to constitutional protection, the court first asks “whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern. If the answer is “no,” the employee’s speech is not entitled to First Amendment protection. If the answer is “yes,” “the question becomes whether the relevant government entity had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public.”
In Abdur-Rahman v. Walker, 567 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir.2009), the Eleventh Circuit discussed the rationale behind the requirement that a public employee speak “as a citizen” to receive constitutional protection for his speech: First, because “government offices could not function if every employment decision became a constitutional matter,” “Supreme Court precedents do not support the existence of a constitutional cause of action behind every statement a public employee makes in the course of doing his or her job.” Second, government employers, like private employers, need a significant degree of control over their employee’s words and actions; without it, there would be little chance of the efficient provision of public services. Because of the unique trusted position that public employees occupy, they ought not to receive constitutional protection for speech that “expresses views that contravene governmental policies or impairs the proper performance of governmental functions. Third, when complaints under the First Amendment are limited to instances in which a public employee proves that he “spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern,” courts avoid “judicial oversight” of workplace communications and “permanent judicial intervention in the conduct of governmental operations to a degree inconsistent with sound principles of federalism and the separation of powers.”
Garcetti v. Ceballos (Wikipedia):
Opinion of the Court
The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, ruling in a 5-4 decision delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy that the First Amendment does not prevent employees from being disciplined for expressions they make pursuant to their professional duties.
Kennedy’s majority opinion
The Court wrote that its “precedents do not support the existence of a constitutional cause of action behind every statement a public employee makes in the course of doing his or her job.” Instead, public employees are not speaking as citizens when they are speaking to fulfill a responsibility of their job.
Though the speech at issue concerned the subject matter of his employment, and was expressed within his office rather than publicly, the Court did not consider either fact dispositive, and noted that employees in either context may receive First Amendment protection. The “controlling factor” was instead that his statements were made pursuant to his duties as a deputy district attorney. Restricting such speech, which “owes its existence to a public employee’s professional responsibilities,” did not in the Court’s view violate any rights that the employee had as a private citizen. Instead, the restrictions were simply the control an employer exercised “over what the employer itself has commissioned or created.”
NYSUT “Free Speech” lawsuit:
ALBANY, N.Y. Oct. 9, 2014 – New York State United Teachers has filed suit in federal court seeking to invalidate confidentiality agreements the State Education Department requires teachers to sign before scoring state tests, saying the prohibition – with its accompanying threats of discipline, including dismissal, license revocation and criminal prosecution – is an unconstitutional prior restraint on teachers’ free speech rights.
The suit, filed Wednesday by NYSUT’s Office of General Counsel on behalf of five teachers, charges the State Education Department with violating teachers’ First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights by preventing them from speaking out on matters of public concern. The suit charges SED’s rules unconstitutionally make teachers’ speech conditional on government approval while establishing a “system to police the free exchange of ideas and opinions regarding its compulsory and costly testing regime.”
Thanks, rager!
The fact is that administrators will use the lack of free speech rights to attack and destroy any teacher who even slightly questions the adminimal’s insane educational practices. And in reality, the teachers only option is to leave that particular district and move on hoping to find somewhere where dissenting views are tolerated (not very many districts). Basically, it’s a matter of “Shut up and do what I tell you”.
True claim: The profiteers behind testing, describe the “reform- driven” schools as “human capital pipelines.” And, they don’t send their own kids to them.