Archives for category: New York City

Arthur Goldstein is a veteran teacher of ESL and chapter chair at Francis Lewis High School in Queens, New York City. Goldstein is a rebel who regularly crosses swords with the city bureaucracy and his union as well. The United Federation of Teachers just signed a new contract with the DOE and the City of New York.

Goldstein explains here why he supports the contract.


I have opposed several UFT contracts. The 2005 contract created the Absent Teacher Reserve, which dropped many of my brothers and sisters into a limbo from which there frequently seems no escape. The last one made us wait until 2020 to get money FDNY and NYPD had back in 2010. Our new tentative contract is not perfect, but also has some significant gains.

On the Contract Committee, we sat and listened while big shots from the DOE told us they were not remotely interested in improving class sizes for NYC’s 1.1 million schoolchildren. I told them what it was like to teach a class of 50 plus. I told them when teachers had oversized classes, their remedy was often to give us one day off from tutoring. Where we needed help, though, was right there in the classroom. I told them the best we could do was use that period to seek therapy to deal with our 50 kids. Via new streamlined processes, this contract should at least shorten the time kids and teachers spend in oversized classes. A similar process has proven very effective with excessive paperwork.

A significant win for teachers is fewer observations. Members have been complaining to me about the frequency of observations ever since the new law came into effect. We all feel the Sword of Damocles hanging above our heads. I don’t really know why I do, because I’m fortunate enough to have a supervisor who’s Not Insane. I think, though, if we want to maintain her ability to stay Not Insane, we have to stop making her write up 200 observations a year.

Of course, this will not resolve the issue of crazy supervisors, something city teachers have been grappling with for decades. While the city plans to institute a screening process for teachers (and we’ll see what that entails) future negotiations need to focus on the issue of self-serving, self-important, foaming-at-the-mouth leaders, likely as not brainwashed by Joel Klein’s toxic Leadership Academy. This contract, at least, will create more work for supervisors who use their positions to exercise personal vendettas.

People who can’t hack teaching don’t want to be responsible for 34 kids at a time. They rise up and become the worst supervisors. They may be lazy, and they may be angry that they have to actually do observations these days rather than simply declaring teachers unsatisfactory. In fact, one principal got caught falsifying observations so as to avoid the effort altogether. Supervisors like that will now have to do additional observations if they rate teachers poorly. They may now think twice now that it can cut into their Me Time. Also, we’ve got new language to deal with supervisory retaliation.

Our new agreement gives long needed due process to paraprofessionals. I’ve seen three paraprofessionals summarily suspended by principals. One of them was able to recoup lost pay via a grievance I helped her file. Another said goodbye to me, and ten days later had a stroke. I received a call in my classroom saying one of her relatives needed to know whether or not to place her in an ambulance, since her health insurance had been discontinued. I was at a rare loss for words. The secretary on the other end of the phone wasn’t, and told the relative yes, of course, put her in the ambulance, The paraprofessional died later that day.

To me, it’s remarkable that paraprofessionals, who spend all day helping the neediest of our students, are not considered pedagogues and therefore ineligible to win tenure. Our new agreement will grant them due process rights they sorely need. No longer will principals be able to suspend them without pay indefinitely based on allegations. There will be rules for when they can be suspended, there will be time limits, and there will be a process, rather than, “Hey you, get lost, and don’t come back until I feel like having you back.” Paraprofessionals deserve more than what we’ve won for them, but this, at long last, is a start.

I’ve read arguments that we should strike, like we’ve seen in red states. We are very different from teachers in red states, who’ve been under “right to work” forever, and for whom collective bargaining may be prohibited. We aren’t making 30K a year and getting food stamps to make ends meet. We haven’t gone a decade without a raise. We aren’t paying an extra 5K more each year for health insurance. In fact, unlike much NY State, we aren’t paying health premiums at all. With our last two contracts, and with no health premiums, our pay is approaching that of some Long Island districts (without the doctorate some of them need), something I’ve not seen in my three plus decades as a teacher.

I’ve read a lot of critiques about the money. We extended our contract last year to enable parental leave for UFT members. The same critics who complained about how that diluted raises from the last contract are now attaching it to this one, making it look like the contract begins months before it actually does. That’s disingenuous. (Now don’t get me wrong, I’m fond of money, and I’d like to have more. I’m writing this on a MacBook that’s partially held together with Scotch Tape.)

I can’t argue with people who say these raises don’t keep up with inflation, because they’re right about that. I know very well, though, that we are getting the pattern established by DC37. I also know exactly how we beat the pattern, which we did in 2005. We do that via givebacks. I’ve already mentioned the ATR. 2005 also brought us extended time. We could agree to more extra time, higher class sizes, or more extra classes, and the city would probably pay us for that. I can assure you that every person I know who opposes this contract would be up in arms about them, as would I. Right now we can’t afford to give back anything.

Concessions about the ATR were the worst thing about the 2014 contract. Thankfully, they expired and were not renewed. The second worst thing, as I recall, was having to wait ten years for money we’d earned. We could’ve had an on-time contract if only leadership agreed to sell out the ATR. UFT hung tough and refused. I don’t like waiting for money, but agreeing to allow ATR members to lose their jobs after a certain amount of time would’ve been a disaster. Any crazy principal could target any activist teacher, and we could’ve been fired at will.

I’d very much have liked to see class size reduced. I’d still like to see class size reduced, and I will work toward that. I also have no idea why we support mayoral control. (I don’t even know why de Blasio wants it, now that the state has hobbled his ability to stop Eva, forcing him to pay her rent.)

Nonetheless, this contract represents significant improvements for us. Chapter leaders, all of whom are sick of the grueling grievance procedure, will now have alternate means to quickly resolve issues involving class size, safety, curriculum, PD, supplies, and workload. Those of us who represented high schools on the UFT Executive Board pushed for fewer observations as per state law, and we were able to work with leadership to achieve it. Those of us on the UFT Contract Committee agreed that we wanted to improve the lot of 30,000 paraprofessionals, and we were able to move in that direction.

I support this contract, and I will encourage my colleagues to do so as well. This is the best contract we’ve seen in decades. It will pass by an overwhelming margin.

Bill de Blasio was elected Mayor of New York City in 2013. He appointed former Deputy Chancellor Carmen Farina as his chancellor. Having been a teacher, a principal, and a superintendent, she was far more qualified than her predecessors Joel Klein (a lawyer) and Dennis Walcott (a non-educator who had served as Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Deputy for education), and teachers welcomed a leader who had knowledge and e perience. However, Farina never cleaned house. People hired by Joel Klein remained in top positions. Farina, of course, had worked for Klein too.

The new Chancellor Richard Carranza has done some shaking up, although the deep strata of corporate reformers remain sheltered in place throughout the upper echelons of the Department of Education.

Leonie Haimson reports here on the resignation of one top Klein hire after two recent demotions and the retention of others.

A reader, Joel Schwartz, sent this article as a comment.

It is based on Karen Ferguson’s book Top Down: The Ford Foundation, Black Power, and the Reinvention of Racial Liberalism.

Ferguson tells the remarkable story of the Ford Foundation’s decision to become a funder of the community control movement in the battle over the future of the New York City public schools in 1967-1969. As she explains, Ford was The Establishment; it was the Gates Foundation of its time. Yet it decided to align with the Black Power movement and to cast itself as anti-establishment and anti-professional.

The events she describes were the start of my professional life.

I was an unofficial advisor to Preston Wilcox, a black social worker who was one of the leaders of the community control movement in Harlem (his organization was called Afram). Tagging along with him, I attended many of the meetings with community activists concerned about the new I.S. 201 in Harlem. I later worked for the Carnegie Corporation as an hourly employee, writing about the three demonstration districts at the heart of the teachers’ strike, which lasted for two full months in 1968.

It was during these tumultuous events that I began to write about the New York City schools. One of my first articles was about the role of the elitist Ford Foundation; the article was titled “Playing God in the Ghetto.”

I won’t go into all the details here, but the teachers’ strikes of 1967-68 inspired me to write my first book, which was published in 1974, called The Great School Wars: New York City, 1805-1973. Many others have been written since then about those crisis-ridden years. They left a deep imprint on me.

Those events continue to resonate today for many people, for different reasons.

Ferguson’s focus on the Ford Foundation’s role is refreshing. I haven’t read the book yet, but intend to do so.

Leonie Haimson demonstrates the disconnect between the Boasting of officials in New York City and State about test scores and the NAEP flatlines of the city and state.

To make matters worse, the state says that it is impossible to compare the scores between 2017 and 2018, because the test timing changed. But then the state and the city proceeded to boast about the “gains” between those years.

She adds:

“Here are some additional questions that I would have asked the Commissioner and/or the Mayor if I’d had the chance:

“How can NYSED or DOE or mayor claim progress has been made, if as clearly stated that as a result in the change in the tests, this year’s scores aren’t comparable to previous years?

“Why did they so radically change the scoring range, from a maximum of about 428 to about 651 this year?

“Why does the state no longer report scale scores in its summaries, rather than proficiency levels which are notoriously easy to manipulate?

“Where are the NYSED technical reports for 2016, 2017, and 2018 that could back up the reliability of the scoring and the scaling?

“Why was the public release of the scores delayed though schools have had student level scores t for a month?

“How were the state vs the city comparisons affected by the fact that opt out rates in the rest of the state averaged more than 18% while they were only about 4% here?

“Finally, how can either the state or the city claim that these tests are reliable or valid, when neither the scoring nor the trends have been matched on the NAEPs, in which NYC scores have NEVER equaled the state in any category and results for the state & city have fallen in 4th grade math and reading since 2013?

“Though the Mayor apparently tempered his tone at this afternoon’s press conference, according to Twitter he apparently claimed that he expects next year’s scores to show significant gains because those 3rd graders will have had the benefit of Universal preK.

“Sorry to say I won’t trust the state test results next year either. We will have take those scores with several handfuls of salt too — and wait for the 2019 NAEP scores to judge their reliability.“

Hakeem Jeffries from Brooklyn is one of the leaders of the Democratic Party in Congress. He is considering a bid to be chair of the Democratic Caucus.

On September 13, he was honored by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools and received its first “African American Charter School Leadership Award.” The event is referred to in the official invitation as #BringTheFunk. The award noted that he is a “faithful supporter” of New York City’s Success Academy charter chain, a favorite of the hedge fund industry, which may well be the best funded charter chain in the nation, known for its strict discipline, its high test scores, and its high attrition rates.

The event was sponsored by the rightwing, anti-union Walton Family Foundation, Campbell Brown’s “The 74,” and Education Reform Now. Campbell Brown is a close friend of Betsy DeVos; Education Reform Now is affiliated with Democrats for Education Reform (DFER), the hedge funders’ organization. Education Reform Now and DFER exist to promote charter schools.

Like so many privately managed charter schools, the new award is segregated, for blacks only.

To understand why Congress is paying $440 million a year for new charter schools, even when there is no need for funding for new charter schools, even though they are amply funded by philanthropists and billionaires, even though they draw funding away from public schools, even though the federal General Accountability Office found that they are rife with waste, fraud, and abuse, even though charter school scandals are increasingly common, even though the NAACP called for a national moratorium on new charter schools, start here.

I hope you will buy and read Andrea Gabor’s After the Education Wars: How Smart Schools Upend the Business of Reform.

It is ironic that Gabor is the Bloomberg chair of business journalism at Baruch College of the City University of New York, because her book stands in opposition to almost everything Mayor Michael Bloomberg did when he had control of the New York City public schools. Bloomberg and his chancellor Joel Klein believed in carrots and sticks. They believed in stack ranking. They believed that test scores were the be-all and end-all of education. They believed that teachers and principals would be motivated to work harder if their jobs and careers were on the line every day. They created a climate of fear, where people were terminated suddenly and replaced by inexperienced newcomers. If they had brought in W. Edwards Deming—Gabor’s guiding star— as an advisor, their strategies would have been very different.

Gabor is a proponent of the philosophy of management of Deming, the management guru who is widely credited with reviving Japanese industry after World War II, by changing its culture and making it a world leader. If Bloomberg had hired Deming as his lead adviser, his strategies would have been lastting, and he might have really transformed the nation’s largest school system and had a national impact.

I first learned about Deming’s work by reading Gabor’s book about Deming titled The Man Who Discovered Quality. I read the book in 2012. I have repeatedly gone back to re-read chapter 9, the chapter where she explains Deming’s hostility to merit pay and performance rankings and his emphasis on collaboration and teamwork.

Describing his views, she wrote:

“The merit rating nourishes short-term performance, annihilates long-term planning, builds fear, demolishes teamwork, nourishes rivalry and politics…It is unfair as it ascribes to the people in a group differences that may be totally caused by the system that they work in.”

She wrote, citing Deming, that performance pay (educators call it merit pay) undermines the corporate culture; it gets everyone thinking only about himself and not about the good of the corporation. Everyone focuses on short-term goals, not long-term goals. If the corporation is unsuccessful, Deming said, it is the fault of the system, not the workers in it. It is management’s job to recruit the best workers, to train them well, to support them, and create an environment in which they can take joy in their work.

Deming understood that the carrot-and-stick philosophy was early twentieth century behaviorism. He understood that threats and rewards do not produce genuine improvement in the workplace. He anticipated what twenty-first century psychologists like Edward Deci and Dan Ariely have demonstrated with their social experiments: People are motivated not by incentives and fear, but by idealism, by a sense of purpose, and by professional autonomy, the freedom to do one’s job well.

In After the Education Wars, Gabor takes her Demingite perspective and writes case studies of districts that have figured out how to embed his principles.

She writes about the “small schools movement” in New York City, the one led by Ann Cook and Deborah Meier, which relied on performance assessment, not standardized tests; the remarkable revival of Brockton High School in Massachusetts, a school with more than 4,000 students; the Leander school district in central Texas, which embraced Deming principles; and the charter takeover of New Orleans.

The chapter on New Orleans is the best account that I have read of what happened in that city. It is not about numbers, test scores, graduation rates, and other data, but about what happened to the students and families who live in New Orleans. She describes a hostile corporate takeover of a city’s public schools and a deliberate, calculated, smug effort to destroy democracy. Her overall view is that the free-market reforms were “done to black people, not with black people.” She spends ample time in the schools and describes the best (and the worst) of them. She follows students as they progress through charter schools to college or prison. She pays close attention to the students in need of special education who don’t get it and who suffer the consequences. She takes a close look at the outside money fueling the free-market makeover. She explains the role of the Gates Foundation, New Schools for New Orleans, and other elements of what was essentially hijacking of the entire school system by venture capitalists and foundations who were eager to make a point about their own success as “gatekeepers” of reform. She finds that New Schools for New Orleans “functions more like a cartel than an open-source project.” It prefers “no-excuses” charter schools like KIPP. Gabor is critical of the Education Research Alliance at Tulane University for ignoring the “no-excuses” discipline policies, saying “ignoring no-excuses discipline practices at New Orleans charters is like covering the New England Patriots and ignoring Deflategate…[Douglas] Harris bristles at the suggesting that his research organization is anything but neutral in its assessments of the city’s charters. Yet ERA’s job must be especially difficult given its co-location with NSNO and the Cowen Institute on the seventh floor of 1555 Poydras Street.”

She writes wistfully of a New Orleans story that never was: “a post-Katrina rebuilding–even one premised on a sizable charter sector, albeit with better oversight and coordination of vital services like those for special-needs students–that sought to engage the community in a way that would have helped preserve, even enhance, its stake in their children’s education. What if, instead of raising the performance scores so as to lasso the vast majority of New Orleans charters into the RSD, the city had taken control of the worst schools while encouraging community groups…to lead by example. What if it had made a concerted effort to enlists dedicated, respected educators and involved citizens and parents…in the school-design and chartering process?”

Gabor’s chapter on New Orleans is a masterpiece of journalism and investigative reporting.

She concludes that “Contrary to education-reform dogma, the examples in this book suggest that restoring democracy, participative decision making, and the training needed to make both more effective can be a key to school improvement and to imbuing children–especially poor and minority children–with the possibilities of citizenship and power in a democracy.”

The New York City Department of Education placed literacy coaches in struggling elementary schools to lift test scores. A new study concluded that the literacy coaches made no difference. The Department responded by increasing the funding for literacy coaches and expressing its confidence that its failed strategy is working. At the least, the Department should try an experiment in reducing class sizes to no more than 12 in similar schools. Hiring literacy coaches is a strategy that was long ago described by the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan as “feeding the horses to feed the sparrows.”

Leonie Haimson predicted the failure of this initiative last April, as it builds on a similar failed program started by Joel Klein.

A major push by New York City to help poor children in public schools learn to read by assigning literacy coaches to their teachers had no impact on second-graders’ progress, according to a study of its first year.

The city Department of Education conducted the evaluation, but its officials said Thursday it was too early to judge the initiative. They said they would strengthen the program while boosting annual funding to $89 million, from $75 million.

The initiative has been a key part of the education agenda of Mayor Bill de Blasio, who early in his tenure set a target of having all students read on level by the end of second grade, by 2026.

Research shows that if children lag behind in reading in third grade, it is very hard for them to catch up. About 43% of the city’s third-graders passed 2017 state exams in English language arts, with some high-poverty schools showing much lower pass rates.

The literacy program embedded 103 coaches in 107 high-need schools in fall 2016. Each coach was assigned to spend the academic year honing teachers’ instructional skills in kindergarten through second grade.

This evaluation tested second-graders in schools that had literacy coaches, and compared their results with peers in similar city schools that had no coaches. The report found that both groups of students were behind in skills in October 2016 and fell further behind expectations by May 2017.

Each group gained an average of four months of skills, when they should have gained seven months. At the end of second grade, students in schools with coaches on average performed at the level expected in the second month of second grade, on a measure known as the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test. It covered decoding skills, word knowledge and comprehension.

The disappointing results didn’t surprise Susan Neuman, a New York University professor of literacy education. She said the department deployed coaches of varying quality, gave them insufficient training and, in some schools, principals shifted them to drilling for state exams…

Department of Education Deputy Chancellor Josh Wallack said he had confidence in the coaches, their training and principal buy-in. He noted that some schools showed real improvements.

“We think we are on the right track,” he said. “We know we have a lot of work to do.”

Skeptics of the initiative have long argued it would be better to reduce class size, add services for the disabled and require a stronger focus on phonics, which teaches children to sound out letters as a primary way to identify words.

The department has expanded the literacy initiative yearly, and will dispatch about 500 coaches this fall, with every elementary school getting a coach or additional attention.

Nothing is as inexplicable as doubling down on failure.

Leonie Haimson reports here on a federal court decision to allow a lawsuit to proceed against Success Academy.

https://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2018/08/federal-court-rules-lawsuit-vs-success.html

“This week, a federal judge in Brooklyn ruled that a lawsuit vs Success Academy could go forward to trial on behalf of some of the children who were on the “Got to go” list put together by the principal of Success Academy Fort Greene, Candido Brown. These children were subsequently pushed out out of the school.The decision is here.

“While the school claims they simply made “errors in judgement,” the practice of repeatedly suspending kids and calling ACS on their parents if they don’t pick them up promptly in the middle of the school day is a common practice at Success, used to persuade parents to pull their children out of the school. Other methods commonly used by the school include calling the police to take unruly children either to the precinct house or to a hospital emergency room.”

She also notes:

“Meanwhile, NYSED reported today that last year it had overpaid charter schools and underpaid NYC from federal Title II funds. The spreadsheet is here, revealing that Success charter schools were overpaid by $1.5 million; and NYC public schools underpaid by $7.1 million, which will only be repaid slowly over four years.”

Leeches gonna leech.

Less money for the 90%+ in public schools as a result of this decision, if it is upheld.

This note just in from civil rights lawyer Wendy Lecker: “This decision denied the motion to dismiss. The case is still pending- the actual controversy has yet to be resolved. At the end of the decision, the judge set a schedule for the DOE to file an answer. So NYC has not yet been ordered to pay.”

Brooklyn Laboratory Charter School, 240 Jay Street in Brooklyn. Image credit: CityLaw.

City DOE refused to pay costs to renovate charter school’s rental space. The Education Law requires the City Department of Education, upon the request of a charter school, to provide the charter school with a co-location in a New York City public school for no charge, or to reimburse a charter school for its “actual rental cost” if the charter school is required to rent at a new location in New York City.

The Brooklyn Laboratory Charter School, a charter middle school located in Brooklyn, New York, requested co-location which City DOE denied. The charter school appealed City DOE’s denial to the New York State Department of Education. The State Commissioner found in favor of the charter school and ordered City DOE to pay the school’s rental assistance once the charter school provided proof of its actual rental costs.

The charter school submitted a new rent bill to City DOE accompanied by a copy of its lease and correspondence with its landlord which explained that the landlord had charged the charter school a reduced rent because the charter school had agreed to make alterations to the premises. The landlord agreed to consider the alterations additional rent under the lease.

City DOE refused to reimburse the charter school for the additional costs it incurred in making alterations, and determined that it would only pay the base rent costs. The charter school sued City DOE. The charter school alleged that it was entitled to payments covering the alterations under the State Education Law and under the prior order by the State Education Commissioner. City DOE moved to dismiss the complaint.

Supreme Court Justice Judge Lucy Billings ruled in favor of the charter school on its claim, including the alteration costs, and denied City DOE’s motion to dismiss. In the absence of a definition of “actual rental costs” in the Education Law, Judge Billings construed the phrase to have its ordinary meaning. She held that this meant City DOE was required to reimburse the charter school for all costs it actually incurred in renting its facility, and not just the base rent.

Brooklyn Lab. Charter v. NYC Dept. of Ed., 67 N.Y.S.3d 397 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty. 2017).

By: Danielle Mabe (Danielle is a New York Law School Graduate, Class of 2018.)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the 28-year-old upstart who scored a surprise victory over one of the most powerful figures in the Democratic Party, Rep. Joseph Crowley, the #4 ranked Democrat in the House of Representatives. The vote was not close.

She explains her victory and her message here, on Morning Joe.

I can’t get the link to the article in the New York Times, but it starts like this:

“At the Parkchester apartments in the Bronx, neighbors heard the news from a maintenance worker: The woman down the hall had just won a primary and was probably headed for Congress. At a popular restaurant in Union Square in Manhattan, workers struggled to comprehend that the young politician whose face was all over TV really was the same woman who had tended bar until a few months ago.

“And on the streets of Midtown Manhattan Wednesday morning, the candidate herself was trying to make sense of it all. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stood outside Rockefeller Center after appearing on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” juggling phone calls and live TV interviews and the well-wishes of doormen and office workers on their coffee breaks.

“I’m used to people kind of knowing me in the community,” said Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, 28. But to have a stream of random people walk up and ask to take a selfie with her? “Insane.”

“Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, whose résumé up to now included waitress, children’s-book publisher, community activist, member of the Democratic Socialists of America and former Bernie Sanders campaign organizer, was now something else: an instant political rock star. She stunned the Democratic establishment by beating one of the senior leaders in the House, Joseph Crowley, in a near-landslide in Tuesday’s primary.”