VOTE FOR LETITIA JAMES IN TUESDAY'S RUNOFF (My View Only)

 

Get out the Vote for Tish James on Tuesday in the Democratic Runoff!

 

Letitia James fought the mayor's reprehensible school closing policies; she deserves our support.

 

 

Note this is my view only along with my wife and most of the family but not necessarily the position of ICE, Jeff Kaufman, MORE or anyone else.

 



 

 

UFT-DOE FACT FINDING HEARINGS CONTINUE

We kind of figured the fact finders recommending a settlement for the UFT contract might try to avoid Mayor Bloomberg.  This piece from the September 26 NY Teacher (official newspaper of the UFT) confirms our thinking.  This is what we learn from NY Teacher:

The UFT has its last scheduled fact-finding hearing for a new contract on Nov. 4. After the final hearing, both the union and the Department of Education will have an opportunity to submit post-hearing briefs.

After the submission of post-hearing briefs, the next step will be for the fact-finding panel to render a nonbinding recommendation designed to help the union and the DOE craft a final settlement. There is no timetable for when the panel will issue its recommendation.

Translation: The process will be left for the new mayor to figure out.

This should be a positive development but since Bloomberg has moved these negotiations, as well as the overall atmosphere in the schools, in such an anti union direction, do not expect much from the fact finders to win our dignity back. 

I tend to agree with the Assailed Teacher that eliminating the horrific new teacher evaluation system and restoring the rights we forfeited in the 2005 contract (ability to grieve file letters,  preferred placement rights for UFT members when a school is closed, seniority and SBO transfers, no teacher hall, cafeteria or potty patrols, stronger due process rights) should be significant contract priorities.

Here is most of the Assailed Teacher's commentary on our last post:

To be honest, and I don't think I am alone here, I would forgo retroactive pay for a declawing of this evaluation system (as Anonymous said above at 5:49pm, the evaluation is a state mandate and needs to be repealed via the state, so a declawing is the best we can hope for) if not a total opting out of it for NYC. Let King threaten to withhold money like he did earlier this year. It would come back on him and Cuomo more than the UFT. On top of this, we would need a better 3020-a process (including reassignments and investigations), the right to grieve letters in the file and an anti-bullying clause that protects us from Tweedy and Leadership Academy administrators. For all of this, and some more things I can't think of, I would forgo retroactive pay.

Unfortunately for teachers in the schools, the union leadership is still touting the new evaluations and the 2005 contract as wins.  They have this narrowed down to the money which we also learn from the NY Teacher:

The dispute pivots largely on the question of pattern bargaining. The UFT’s position is that its members are entitled to the same raises other city workers have received. The mayor contends that the city cannot afford to follow the pattern.

However, the pattern is 4% + 4% and no givebacks.

Do you consider the teacher evaluation system a gain or a giveback?

CITY OWES TEACHERS A FORTUNE IN NEXT CONTRACT

In the last day both NYC Educator and Reality Based Educator have posted material on the long ago expired UFT contract.  The teachers' contract ended on October 31, 2009 and the last raise for teachers and other UFT members was on May 19, 2008 ( yearly steps, education increments and longevity steps are not raises). New York City teachers have been working without a contract for almost four years. 

The Triborough Amendment to the Taylor Law keeps the old contract in effect until we have a new one but in June the working conditions for the new contract were basically set by State Education Commissioner John King's arbitration on teacher evaluations. This fall we are discovering that those conditions are not very pleasant.  No teacher I have talked to is pleased with the new evaluations.

In my school and in emails, the two questions I am constantly asked are:

• Why did the UFT agree to the awful teacher evaluation system?

• Where is our new contract?

The two questions are of course linked and so are the answers.

Based on nothing but UFT President Michael Mulgrew's comments at recent meetings and being an outsider close enough to the inside to have some knowledge of how the process works, I think there are a few reasonable prognostications that can be made as to what will happen next year when there is a new mayor. 

If the red baiting campaign against Democrat Bill de Blasio succeeds (as it does in UFT elections) and de Blasio loses, Republican Mayor Joe Lhota would almost certainly continue the war on the UFT and there might be a disastrous ending. 

However, if de Blasio wins, the contract picture should revert to a more traditional model rather quickly. Unfortunately for working people, so much damage has been done over the last few years that the traditional center of gravity has moved in such an anti-union direction that it could be difficult to move it back in a meaningful way.

I predict the UFT contract will be settled sooner rather than later in a de Blasio administration.  The UFT went to non binding fact finding arbitration with the Public Employees Relations Board a while back.  One of the arbitrators was picked by the UFT, one was selected by the city and the third was chosen by the first two as the neutral arbitrator.  Each side usually will win something in arbitration in order to justify the process. 

If past experience holds, the arbitrators will contact both parties and ask them what they can live with in the context of what is on the negotiating table.  They would like to get everyone to accept their report.  Knowing that Bloomberg wants to crush the union once and for all, it is difficult to imagine the current mayor signing off on anything.

However, there are seasoned veterans who work at the city Office of Labor Relations who have positive, longstanding relationships with the unions. Therefore, if Bill de Blasio wins the election in November, he will more than likely sign off on what the arbitrators come up with and that will form the basis of a settlement.

As for what will be in that agreement, it is somewhat predictable.  As NYC Educator quite correctly points out, our contract has traditionally been settled through pattern bargaining.  One municipal labor union agrees to a contract and that sets a pattern for a salary increase that all of the other municipal unions then must adhere to.  If a union wants an increase larger than the pattern, then they have to give up something in order to get more money.  The UFT did this in 2002 and 2005 by agreeing to work more time in exchange for salary increases above the patterns set by District Council 37.

The UFT is now two contracts behind because in 2008, DC 37 settled on a two year contract for a 4% salary increase in year one and another 4% raise in year two with no givebacks at all in either year.  They set a fairly decent pattern considering this was in the midst of a financial crisis but also it was during the period when Bloomberg was figuring out how to run for a third term so he wanted union silence. That contract has long since expired so DC 37 and most of the other city unions are only one contract behind.  We are two back.

In 2009, right around the time when Mulgrew took over the UFT presidency, the union was agreeing to support an extension of mayoral control of the schools in legislation in Albany.  Back then, just about everyone thought that by taking a dive on mayoral control, which was up for renewal that summer and actually briefly expired, it meant that it was just a matter of time before teachers would get the two 4% increases that most of the other city unions received.  Bloomberg would have none of it and instead decided to go to war with the UFT when he won a renewal of his school dictatorship.  It is a war he has essentially been winning.

He denied UFT members the salary increases that are owed to us based on decades worth of precedent and simultaneously the teacher unions in the state were persuaded to compete for federal Race to the Top funding which eventually led to what is arguably the most horrific concession in UFT history: State Education Commissioner John King's new teacher evaluation system. 

Bloomberg was quite correct when he stated that he won just about everything he wanted in the new evaluation system and he didn't have to give up anything to get it.  The UFT calling the new system a gain is baffling as I don't know of any teachers who were demanding more observations or having their annual rating based on student test scores or having the burden of proof shift to teachers in termination hearings if people are rated ineffective two years in a row. The imposition of a new evaluation system was originally tied to unions having new contracts but Mulgrew inexplicably agreed to have the two de-coupled.

So, a brief review of the situation today shows that the UFT is four years without a contract and five years without a raise.  Meanwhile, UFT leadership has already agreed to what might be the biggest giveback in the history of our union by supporting legislation to allow Commissioner King decide on the new evaluation system.  The contract is currently in the hands of three fact finders who will write a report that either side can reject or accept.

Will the fact finders say we should get the 4% + 4% pattern? In some form the answer is probably yes.  Will the city agree to it? That is a little more tricky.

Bloomberg's irresponsibility in not settling contracts puts the city in a bind.  If they try to do away with pattern bargaining, they will give away their best time honored negotiating strategy of settling with a weak union and then compelling everyone else to follow suit.  It is highly unlikely they will reject this strategy unless Joe Lhota wins the election and makes finishing off the UFT and other unions a priority.  We are in such bad shape in terms of our fighting ability, i.e. a job action, that Lhota might be able to pull it off should he become the mayor.

However, if the more labor friendly de Blasio wins, expect a different dilemma for the city. If the city says yes and agrees to the 4% + 4% pattern for us, then they will owe us a small fortune. Do the math: 

Top salary for city teachers is currently $100,049 (way under what teachers in most suburban districts around here earn).
 
$100,049
x 1.04 (4%)
$104,050.96

The increase for 2009-2010 is $4001.96. 

Now for year two:
$104,050.96
x 1.04 (4%)
$108,212.99

The increase for 2010-2011 is $8,163.99 over what we have now.

Then, the retroactive increase for 2011-2012 is another $8,163.99.

For 2012-13 add another $8,163,99.

Now add up all of the retroactive money and even if there is a contract right away, the city owes teachers on maximum a staggering $28,493.39. If this lingers into 2014, as it almost definitely will, the retroactive price-tag goes to over $30,000 for senior teachers. 

The amounts for newer teachers are lower but Bloomberg's irresponsibility will still cost the city a great deal of cash and will be called a budget buster.  A friend suggested staggering the payments over three years, as they do with termination pay, to ease the budget pain for the city. In addition, we have to make up a small amount from a prior pension agreement but since that time new teachers have been stuck with an inferior Tier 6 pension, so we have given back even more.

It must be emphasized over and over how we have already conceded in terms of pattern bargaining because the pattern set by DC 37 is 4% + 4% with no givebacks and the new teacher evaluation system is arguably the biggest concession ever made by the UFT and the Legislature passing Tier 6 was not a gain either. The city owes us this money without givebacks.  We should demand it and an end to the evaluation system.  Yes we would need to go the state and have the law changed. That is what we should mobilize around.

Unfortunately, I forecast that a huge majority of teachers will vote for any contract with retroactive raises in spite of the fact that such a contract will be our only chance to have any say on the new evaluation system, as it will be incorporated into the agreement.

We may also see a loss on merit pay with teachers rated highly effective getting bonuses.  In the end our contract will probably be something like the Newark, NJ contract or the New Haven, CT contract.

On a positive note, I am not worried that the UFT will add insult to the evaluation system injury by selling out the Absent Teacher Reserves in a new contract by giving ATR's a time limit to find a new job after they are excessed.  This surrender makes no sense.  It would have to be agreed to by the State Legislature and other unions would destroy Mulgrew for setting a precedent that could then be applied to them too.  (Close the fire houses and make the firefighters find a new house to accept them or face layoff). I also see some minor tweaks in the teacher evaluation system that Mulgrew will trumpet as great gains but will have little impact in the schools.

De Blasio and the UFT may also use the fact finding report as a starter and then expand it to a grand bargain on a much longer contract to settle two rounds of collective bargaining at once. Remember, the fact finders are dealing with our last contract which will have expired in 2011. We will have caught up with everyone else who does not have a contract.

I am not ready to publicly speculate on what could be in a grand bargain for a longer agreement but understand it is a possibility. 

As usual I hope the situation will turn out differently.  Maybe de Blasio will be the progressive he is accused of being and/or the rank and file teachers will be appalled and not accept the new evaluation system thus forcing a real sea change.  It could happen but it is up to us to make that a reality.  More likely, we will be thrown some money and we will be resigned to our awful working conditions.

UFT DELEGATES ENTHUSIASTICALLY ENDORSE DE BLASIO FOR MAYOR BUT MULGREW ONCE AGAIN STIFLES ANY DISSENT

On Wednesday there was a special Delegate Assembly meeting called to endorse Bill de Blasio for Mayor. UFT President Michael Mulgrew used a major part of his report to talk about how he brought Democratic mayoral candidates Bill deBlasio and Bill Thompson together last weekend for a meeting at UFT HQ.  His unity meeting obviously succeeded as it was one of the reasons Thompson was persuaded to drop out of the race for mayor on Monday even though all of the votes in the primary were not yet counted. 

While Mulgrew appeared magnanimous with the mayoral candidates, he did not treat his Delegates the same way as he cut off debate on the deBlasio endorsement resolution before anyone was allowed to speak against the motion. Instead, to kill time he spent several minutes telling jokes while Delegates waited for deBlasio to show up to address them.

I raised a point of order and read the following line from Robert's Rules of Order (the parliamentary procedural rule book), "Ending debate.  Debate of a question is not ended by the chair's rising to put the question to vote until both the affirmative and the negative are put;" It goes on by saying that "a member can claim the floor and thus reopen debate." That is clear language. 

Now look up the meaning of the word debate from Webster's Dictionary: "Debate-1: To discuss a question by considering opposing arguments."  The leadership of our union does not understand the words opposing arguments as in this so called debate, two Delegates from the majority Unity Caucus spoke in favor of supporting de Blasio and then a third, a retired teacher, rose to call for the end of the debate. 

Since members of Unity Caucus sign a pledge that they will support decisions of the caucus in union and public forums (the so called Unity loyalty oath), Mulgrew knew how the Delegates from his party would stand on the issue and the only Delegate who wanted to oppose the de Blasio endorsement was Marjorie Stamberg, a person whose call for an American working class party is known throughout the DA.  She should have been permitted to address the body so we could hear an opposing viewpoint.  That is the whole purpose of debate.

Mulgrew not only ignored my point of order, instead he erroneously stated that a point of order is a question. What was he talking about? A point of order according to Robert's Rules is "an assertion that a rule is being violated and a request that the rule be enforced by the chair. It takes precedence over any pending motion out of which it arises."

At this point, the UFT's parliamentarian just fumbled through a book that looked from a distance like Roberts' Rules but said nothing.  Mulgrew, as previously mentioned, had nothing to say so he told jokes while waiting for de Blasio to arrive and then as soon as he had word that the Public Advocate was in the house, he called on Delegates to vote on the endorsement.  The vote was nearly unanimous (I voted for the endorsement as readers of this blog know I endorsed de Blasio prior to the primary) but I was once again disgusted by the lack of democracy at the DA and I wish that all of the people who complain about the DA would vocally show support when someone attempts to see that democratic protocol is followed.  Delegates came to me after the meeting and said I was right but during the meetings there needs to be a movement for real democracy.

PRESIDENT'S REPORT

Since this was a special Delegate Assembly, there was only a report from President Michael Mulgrew and the resolution to support deBlasio. The President covered much of the same ground he touched on last week in the Chapter Leader meeting.  However, before he began there was a moment of silence for Florence Wilpon, a UFT activist from PS 137 who recently passed away.

 

Concerning the opening of school, Mulgrew reported that the problems were the evaluation system and the lack of curriculum. He stated that the parents were upset with the recent test results and we need to be there to support them.  He talked about the desperate situation for teachers nationally.  He then took a poke at Bloomberg calling him the worst education mayor in history. 

 

He followed by speaking about evaluations and said we would not go back to the old system even though the current process is not that great.  The biggest concern is the Measures of Student Learning portion of the system. He said we had an agreement with the Department of Education in March that fell apart that was much better than the system State Education Department Commissioner John King imposed in his arbitration.

 

He added that there are contradictions in the arbitration and that it isn't going to work but that the point of the new evaluation system is supposed to be to support and develop the work that teachers do.  He told us he can't understand how a teacher who does not teach English can be held accountable for English test results.  He then stated that this is not the evaluation system we would want a year from now and said it would be fixed in contract negotiations.

 

The remainder of the report concerned politics.  Mulgrew said that our candidates won the vast majority of the 54 campaigns we were involved in this year.  He then spent time saying how Republican Joe Lhota wants to continue the Bloomberg education policies so we must defeat him and elect a Democrat as mayor.

 

On Thompson he pointed out that it is unconscionable that 10% of the primary votes are still not counted as of today and as a Thompson supporter, he respected the wishes of the candidate.  Then he talked about the meeting that was held last Saturday between Mulgrew, Thompson and deBlasio where they all agreed to do what is best for the city that they love by electing a Democratic mayor in November. Then, there was the aforementioned motion and the usual one sided debate.  Mulgrew then stalled and finally deBlasio came in and addressed the crowd.

 

 

DE BLASIO SPEECH

De Blasio told the Delegates that we must fix what has been broken.  He thanked Mulgrew for handling a delicate situation well.  He said there was now a danger of complacency.  He stated that he saw the poll showing him way ahead but he wasn't fooled because vicious attacks against him would soon be coming because of his proposal to tax the wealthy to pay for universal pre-kindergarten as well as after school programs for middle schools.  He said they would throw the kitchen sink at him because of his alliance with the teacher's union.

 

He then declared that we can have a safe city and a strong city.  He spoke about his "Tale of Two Cities" theme noting that it is a patriotic act to acknowledge it and fix it. He said it is not anti-business to build affordable housing or for people like car wash workers and fast food workers to organize into unions.  He complimented the UFT for organizing the child care workers and said that he was honored to be a part of that campaign.

 

He pointed out that he is trying to be the first mayor to have a child in the public schools.  (Someone in the crowd yelled the name of his son Dante and received a warm reaction from the candidate.)

 

He then concluded his remarks by saying that he thinks of teachers as heroes and that in the next seven weeks we will need to give it our all as we must fight back against the brutal attacks that are coming and we must achieve a strong victory on November 5.  He received a thunderous standing ovation and the meeting ended.

READING THE TEA LEAVES AT CHAPTER LEADER MEETING: Sayanara Bill Thompson? Don't Expect Much Improvement on the Evaluation System with a New Mayor

We're back in school and the UFT called for a Chapter Leader meeting on Wednesday at the Brooklyn Bridge Marriot.  Great cookies and lots of soft drinks were an enticement to listen to President Michael Mulgrew give one of his lengthy monologues.  After listening to him for over an hour, here are my quick views on what he said or at least implied:

1. The UFT will abandon Bill Thompson's mayoral campaign in a hurry  soon to achieve Democratic party unity and hope for the best opportunity to elect a Democrat as the mayor.
2. Mulgrew wants to tweak the new teacher evaluation system but we are stuck with it and the UFT will continue to promote it.  However, judging by the reaction from the Chapter Leaders, it seems like the rank and file aren't buying.

 

POLITICS

From listening to Mulgrew's remarks, at first it looked like the UFT would be sticking with Thompson.  He said that Thompson only missed the runoff by around 700 votes.  (That number was disputed by some people around where I sat.)  However, then Mulgrew stated that after twenty years of Republican mayors and the damage they have done to the school system, it is imperative that we elect a Democrat in November as our top priority. (Translation: We don't need a three week runoff where two Democrats bloody each other and Republican Lhota could possibly sneak in.) Mulgrew even stated that we don't want a split Democratic party.  He then told us there might soon be a special Delegate Assembly on an updated endorsement.  (Translation: We will be supporting deBlasio hopefully.)

Mulgrew was not humbled by the results (Thompson lost by around 14%) at all and took a victory lap by noting that Comptroller candidate Scott Stringer, who beat Elliot Spitzer in the Primary on Tuesday, specifically thanked the teachers for getting him in.  Mulgrew then reported on how UFT candidates won 42 out of 47 races on Tuesday and a couple of others are still too close to call.

During the question period, the Chapter Leader from Dewey High School questioned the Thompson endorsement and Mulgrew responded that it was done democratically and the Chapter Leader must not like democracy.  (I am just reporting folks; please don't gag when UFT Presidents stand up for democracy.)

Mulgrew also reported that the outgoing mayor would be trying to collocate and even close as many schools as possible before he leaves office at the end of the year. He also noted that we would be going to the Panel for Educational Policy to urge them to have teachers, not test scores, be the final judge on which students get promoted.

 

NEW EVALUATION SYSTEM

President Mulgrew ceded very little ground when he talked about the state imposed new teacher evaluation system.  While members of the Movement of Rank and File Educators were handing out leaflets with a petition on the back urging for a moratorium on imposing the new system, Mulgrew was inside telling us that the UFT disagrees with the implementation of the new system by the current Department of Education administration.  Specifically, he emphasized how there is a state Public Employees Relations Board case going on and a Union initiated grievance.  He also told us that there are 150 new arbitration slots thanks to the new system so we can have many problems that can't be worked out by October 25 taken to this expedited process. He once again insisted that we have stronger due process under the current system than we had in the past.

 

He then argued that the increased observations under Danielson's framework could be positive if they are handled in a collegial way by administration but if administration plays hardball with teachers, Mulgrew recommended that teachers respond in kind by holding them to the letter of the law.

 

Mulgrew did admit that he was troubled by the Measures of Student Learning (MOSL) portion of the new "Advance" evaluation system, where we are judged on student test scores, but he insisted that changing and expanding what can be used for our MOSL scores would be a priority in contract negotiations. 

 

During the question period, Mulgrew addressed lesson plans.  He told the Chapter Leaders that the Danielson framework leaves the lesson plan format up to the teacher but the DOE disputes this.  He said that our contract is still in effect in terms of freedom of lesson plan format and prohibition against ritualized collection of lesson plans by administration so we are in grievance in these areas.

 

Mulgrew summed up the evaluation system by predicting that two years from now, many more schools will be doing evaluation right than wrong and that teachers need to get over their fear of having other adults in their classrooms.  He also told us that we must report it to the UFT if we need questions answered on the evaluation system, if don't have curriculum or if we have problems such as oversize classes.

 

 

NATIONAL POLITICS

The President briefly touched on the national scene when he declared that the situation is dire in cities around the country for public education.  He told us how 35% of the teachers had been laid off in Philadelphia by a Democratic mayor who was turning over much of the system to charter schools.  He then stated that 52 schools were closed in Chicago despite the valiant fight against it there and those teachers only had five months to find a new job or they were laid off.  He then stated that Los Angeles and Houston were also in bad shape.

 

He followed this by noting that we are not in such a bad position in NYC but that over the next couple of years we may have the opportunity to turn NYC into a model public school system. He told us we might have to change from fighting to a different mode of operation in the near future.

 

(Translation: Expect more Newark/DC style contract concessions in the future in NYC. Get used to being judged on junk science and constantly observed. It will make you a better teacher!)

UPDATE-I came home from Brooklyn to eastern Queens, where I live, around 7:30 pm last night.  My wife and I ate, played some games with our four year old daughter (the fun part of the day) before helping to get her to bed.  I was exhausted so I went to sleep without checking the news and woke up before 5:00 am to write this piece. I didn't know that Thompson was fighting on. Is the UFT really considering holding out on this? 

MY ENDORSEMENTS AND NON-ENDORSEMENTS (NOT SPEAKING FOR ICE)

The Primary Election is Tuesday, September 10 and this has been one really strange race for mayor.  Yes it matters for teachers, parents and students who the next mayor will be and people have been asking me who I will be voting for in Tuesday's primary for the citywide offices. 

The Independent Community of Educators (ICE) has discussed the races but not taken a position.   What follows is my view and my view only that is based mostly on education issues.  It does not reflect the position of ICE or MORE, or Jeff Kaufman or anyone but me.

NON-ENDORSEMENT OF THOMPSON

The UFT has been strongly pushing Bill Thompson, the former comptroller and one time president of the old Board of Education, for mayor. Like NYC Educator, I have made phone calls for UFT endorsed candidates I support, written newsletters and talked to my chapter about solid candidates who are backed by the UFT.  However, I cannot support Thompson for three reasons. 

First, he said Bloomberg was correct in not offering the same 4%+4% raises to teachers in 2009 that most other city unions received in the last round of collective bargaining back then. In the debate last Tuesday (go to around 8 minute 45 second mark for the question), Thompson did not come out and say we are owed retroactive money which is a small fortune after five years without the raise that most other city employees received and the city owes us because of pattern bargaining (one union settles on a contract and the rest of the unions receive the same financial terms).

Second, the co-chair of his campaign is Merryl Tisch, the Chancellor of the New York State Board of Regents and architect of much of the teacher bashing-privatization agenda that is killing us.  Third, Republican former Senator Al D'Amato, a renowned teacher basher, is a key Thompson supporter and fundraiser.  Do you really think Thompson will ignore Tisch and D'Amato and side with us if he is elected?  Expect a modified version of Ed deform if he wins.  

The question must be asked about why the UFT has been so strong in their advocacy of Thompson.  It is the biggest push from the leadership that I have ever seen. Does anyone ever recall emails from the president asking us to contribute money to a political campaign?  Isn't COPE (political funds we voluntarily contribute from our checks) enough?

Once again paralleling NYC Educator, I received phone calls asking me to make phone calls for Thompson.  Unlike NYC Educator, I was not home and didn't respond.  Mailings from Thompson show up regularly in my mail at home.  There are UFT sponsored TV ads in support of his candidacy and last Tuesday the District Representative for Queens High Schools made an urgent plea for chapter leaders to go to every member to individually convince each member to vote for Thompson.  They are calling it the most important vote we ever have had.  I don't agree that Thompson is worth all of this fuss. To me it looks like the union leadership is looking out for their own reputation and really not considering its rank and file.

People have asked me if the union will be weakened if another UFT endorsed candidate loses in the primary. Remember we supported three candidates who each lost in 2001.  The answer is it will hurt us but we would be weaker supporting another winning Democratic candidate who is in bed with the same interests that want to privatize public education. Ask yourself what we have gotten back for endorsing Barack Obama for president.  What did the AFL-CIO get for supporting Andrew Cuomo for governor? I do not think Thompson would be as bad as those two but I don't see anything but marginal improvements for us under a Thompson mayoralty.

Based on the evidence, at this time I do not think a Thompson endorsement is wise but I would consider supporting Thompson in a runoff against Christine Quinn which now appears to be a highly unlikely prospect. 

THE FIELD

What about the other candidates? 

Christine Quinn, as Speaker of the City Council, could have told Bloomberg to take a hike when he asked for a third term by never bringing the bill to end term limits to the City Council floor but she didn't do it.  Instead, she made a political deal in 2008 to overturn two votes of the people supporting term limits for city officials.  She paved the way for Bloomberg's disastrous third term.  In return, I will not be supporting her. The fact that she is endorsed by the anti teacher NY Times, NY Post and Daily News just clinches my anti Quinn vote.  People are saying that a vote for Quinn is a  vote for a de facto term four for Bloomberg and I concur.

Sal Albanese is a former teacher who says as part of his education plan that he will "Stand up to the UFT."  He goes on to say the following concerning teachers, "...a Mayor who represents the whole city must be willing to put his foot down, be a smart financial steward, and protect the interests of all New Yorkers."  I don't want a mayor who is putting his foot down on me.
Case closed on Sal.

John Liu makes many good points on issues but he has little chance of winning and he has run a radio ad saying that he is going to get rid of bad teachers.  Is that based on student test scores? That is a deal breaker for me.

Bill de Blasio is kind of an unknown as to where he really stands.  The current Public Advocate is running a progressive campaign with his "tale of two cities" advocacy for the poor and middle class.  His big proposal is to tax people making over $500,000 a year to fund universal pre-kindergarten and after school programs.  Having a four year old daughter myself and knowing how difficult (basically impossible) it was to get her into a city pre-K program this fall, de Blasio's proposal strikes me as being very sound. 

Bill deBlasio also has the endorsement of the leading fighters against the school privatization movement: Diane Ravitch and Leonie Haimson.  In addition, the Professional Staff Congress (CUNY teachers union), an American Federation of Teachers local, is endorsing deBlasio as is Local 1199, the biggest union in the city. 

Public advocate deBlasio has been criticized for changing positions on issues such as ending term limits which he supported in 2005 but then opposed, when it mattered in 2008, when Bloomberg and Quinn engineered the mayor's third term. 

My biggest concern is seeing that de Blasio has worked closely with the real estate interests that have certainly not done much to improve life in this city for average New Yorkers.  If elected, will he help his money people or the other New York he is campaigning for?  I am skeptical.

My wife and I met with the Public Advocate to ask him to assist Jamaica High School back in 2010. He was sympathetic but there hasn't been much help since then from his office. In fairness, there wasn't much he could have done other than join lawsuits. 

The rest of the Democrats and Republicans in the field are obviously not viable including Anthony Weiner, aka Carlos Danger.  When the UFT made their ill timed endorsement of Thompson in June, Danger was still riding high in the polls.  His latest sexting scandal had not yet been exposed. 

Unlike some of my fellow bloggers and others who write regularly on NYC education matters, I am a NYC resident and registered Democrat.  My vote will be for Bill deBlasio. Although I am not convinced that de Blasio is a great candidate, I'm betting that having support from people like Diane Ravitch, Leonie Haimson and Professional Staff Congress President Barbara Bowen will persuade him to do what is right for public education more than Bill Thompson who is backed by Merryl Tisch, Al D'Amato, AFT President Randi Weingarten and UFT President Michael Mulgrew.

I do believe that the UFT will jump on board the deBlasio bandwagon if he wins the primary and is the Democratic nominee.

One final point on the mayor's race. The UFT is supposed to have such a smart political insider operation under Mulgrew but they didn't know that Carlos Danger might implode and much of his support could go to deBlasio.  Had they waited for this race to break a little in the summer, they may have not locked themselves into the Thompson corner that they are now stuck in with much of their membership not at all impressed.

  

SCOTT STRINGER FOR COMPTROLLER

Scott Stringer as Manhattan Borough President appointed Patrick Sullivan as his representative on the Bloomberg controlled Panel for Educational Policy.  Right from the start, Patrick has been a real friend of public education and a thorn in the side of the Department of Education.  He has been the only one to consistently expose the waste of taxpayer money in DOE contracts. Stringer has allowed Patrick to vote his conscience and he has come through for public schools, not only in Manhattan but citywide.

Stringer's representative is a true friend of Jamaica High School and not only supported us but advocated for our cause vocally at the PEP and behind the scenes.  In a rational political system, my school would not be phasing out.

I know some friends have some real issues with Stinger because of development in Manhattan but for me as a teacher, I am strongly persuaded that he has some principles because of Sullivan and the alternative of a return of Elliot Spitzer to office does not seem that appealing.

LETITIA JAMES FOR PUBLIC ADVOCATE

Tish James signed onto the lawsuit to save Jamaica and many other schools.  When Leonie Haimson convinced me to come with a group of students to testify before the City Council Education Committee, Councilwoman James treated our kids like the experts on education that they truly are.  I think she would be a strong public advocate, particularly for public education.

 REALITY BASED EDUCATOR GETS AN A+ FOR ELECTION COVERAGE

This summer, while away, my family kept up with the political and education news each day by going to the Perdido Street School blog.  I urge everyone to read Reality Based Educator daily.







UFT-DOE THROW SENIOR TEACHERS IN PHASING OUT SCHOOLS UNDER THE BUS

As New York City teachers, we can usually count on our union, the United Federation of Teachers, to represent our employer's interests at least as much as ours if not more so.  Case in point: excessing in phasing out schools.  As a school phases out, obviously the staff is going to shrink as each year there is one less grade.  However, the UFT Contract has a clause that protects senior teachers.  It is Article 17B, Rule 10 which states:

Teachers at all levels who have served 20 years or longer on regular appointment shall not be excessed except for those in neighboring schools who are excessed to staff a newly organized school.

That is strong, unambiguous language that prevents excessing of senior teachers.  However, unbeknownst to anyone out of the inner circle of the UFT and Department of Education, last September the two sides reached an agreement to allow twenty year teachers to be excessed. For teachers in non phasing out schools, they are excessed within their own schools.  They become Absent Teacher Reserves who cover for classes of absent teachers but they are not subject to the horrible week-to-week rotation to different schools that other ATRs have been forced to endure since the 2011 UFT-DOE agreement on ATRs.

Since many Rule 10 teachers are serving in license areas where there are not that many openings, these people no longer have to teach out of license in order to stay in their own buildings. The remainder of the Rule 10 people are primarily teachers from schools that are downsizing, usually phasing out schools.

There is absolutely no reason for the UFT, which says they are against school closings, to not hold the DOE to the letter of Rule 10 in a school that is downsizing.  However, as part of the agreement from last September, the parties agreed that the DOE can excess veteran teachers in the last year of a school's phase out and send them into the week-to-week rotation pool.  This makes no sense educationally and it is a mindless concession on the part of the UFT.

Students and staff in closing schools have already been harmed a great deal through the phase out process as we have been labeled as failures by the city. The DOE then does everything it can to push students out of phasing out schools by not offering many of the classes that numerous pupils require for graduation and then telling them repeatedly that they should transfer.

Each year as the school loses a grade, there are fewer students so the staff is cut proportionally.  As a result, there is less access to more parts of the school building for the remaining students and there are extremely limited course offerings.  Having the Rule 10 people in the school provided much needed stability for the kids as at least there were known faces that pupils could turn to for college recommendations, advice, tutoring and support. In addition, having more teachers meant the DOE was compelled to provide more real classes as opposed to internet classes that are not rigorous and pupils complain about constantly. Rule 10 teachers guaranteed a modicum of normalcy in the insane world that is a closing school. This logic was ignored by UFT leaders when they agreed to force people contractually entitled to stay in a school out of their buildings.

Apparently, the UFT was not too proud about this Rule 10 agreement as President Michael Mulgrew only mentioned it in passing last fall and he never handed the full agreement out to us to let the Delegate Assembly vote on it. I only found out about it because the principal of my school gave me a copy in June.

Finally, for those hoping the UFT leaders would save us legally as they filed suit in 2011 to stop that year's round of school closings, a friend informed me that there have been no papers filed on that suit since May 2012.  Have they abandoned us there as well?

Happy Labor Day all and I hope to start posting regularly again as the school year begins.

CORE CONFERENCE BRINGS TOGETHER EDUCATION ACTIVISTS NATIONWIDE

Last weekend progressive educator groups from all over North America met in Chicago to be part of the Coalition of Rank and File Educator's (CORE) social justice union conference. My wife Camille and I were there as part of a ten person contingent from New York's Movement of Rank and File Educators.

While I certainly do not agree with everything that was said during the three day gathering, I sat there in amazement as one of the leaders of CORE in Chicago explained how they were able to mobilize tens of thousands of teachers for last year's strike and for election as well as reelection. CORE's campaign themes and organizational ability are very impressive.

An unbelievable 90% of the Chicago teachers voted to authorize a strike and then eight months after the strike, close to 80% of the voters reelected the CORE leadership team for another three year term of office leading the Chicago Teachers Union. About 80% of the eligible people voted in this year's CTU election. Unlike New York City, I learned in Chicago that retirees do not participate in active teacher union elections throughout most of the country.

Another highlight for me in Chicago was to be able to hear CTU President Karen Lewis speak in person. She addressed a number of themes including how important it is for teachers to work with parents to safeguard public education.

Xian Barrett from CORE addresses conference; next to him is Beth Davies, President of National Union of Teachers UK and Karen Lewis, the President of the Chicago Teachers Union

If we are to win back our dignity, it will take a united labor effort nationally and locally.  If last weekend's conference pushed that momentum a little, then it truly was worth it.

A full report from the conference is here at Labor Notes.

Chicago students do a series of readings at the Heymarket Memorial

"ADVANCE" PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT SHOWS DEEPLY FLAWED NEW EVALUATION SYSTEM

This summer my wife and I, two New York City high school teachers, made a conscious decision that we were going to step away from the madness that is the New York City public schools to enjoy the summer before returning to school under the new evaluation system.

While away enjoying ourselves with relatives, I received an email from the Principal of Jamaica High School telling me that our School Local Measures Committee, along with many others, was scheduled for professional development on August 6 from 8:30 am to 4:30 pm at NYU.  The Department Of Education was even going to be paying teachers per session money ($41.98 per hour with an hour taken out for lunch and a break) to attend the training.

Camille and I reluctantly concluded that learning about the new system would be worthwhile for my Chapter so we came back to New York a day earlier than planned to attend the training session.

On the positive side it was great seeing two of my colleagues from Jamaica at the training and as we have a good relationship with our Principal, we were comfortable sitting and working with him.  Also, the food the DOE provided was quite edible, the view of downtown Manhattan from the 10th floor was magnificent and the power-point binder the DOE people gave us looked very professional.

The negative was everything that was presented to us about the new system to rate teachers. It is clear that the DOE people are just going through the motions and have little idea how the new procedures will work out.

I am going to try to explain some of what I learned about the new evaluation system that is now being called "Advance".  Who came up with this name?   After sitting through 7 hours of "Advance" training, I can say with some conviction that "Advance" will do nothing to advance teacher professionalism but it will produce a great deal of anxiety, high blood pressure and stomach problems for teachers, students, parents and principals. To me "Sickening" would be a more accurate name.

40% of each teacher's annual rating will be based on "Measures of Student Learning" which just means student test scores. This will be divided into 20% State Measures and 20% Local Measures.

For teachers whose courses end in a state exam such as the Regents in high schools, the grades of that teacher's individual students on the exam will be how that teacher will be judged on the 20% State Measures.

Some Regents classes could be exempt.  For example on Page 20 of Part 7 of the power-point for high schools it says, "...a teacher of 4 sections of Chemistry and 1 section of Physics would not have the Physics Regents as part of their State Measures."  However, they could use the Physics Regents as their Local Measure. What if someone has two Regents classes and three non-Regents classes? I'm not sure if they have enough Regents classes to be evaluated on State measures on the student test scores.

Since the majority of teachers do not teach classes that culminate in a state exam, principals can use the school-wide results on the state exams to rate the individual teachers for the State Measures.  The principal can also tie a teacher's rating to grade level exam results for the school or a targeted population such as the lowest third of students.  There will also be city exams that have not yet been created for principals to choose from for certain teachers.

The Local 20% can also be the same state exams (Regents for high schools) but instead of the teacher's individual students being used as the guide, the second 20% can be based on a targeted population such as the lowest third of students or the grade-wide average. It can't be the same population as the State 20%.

Alternatives such as the Advanced Placement Exams will be allowed but most students are not in AP classes at the majority of schools. Other third party exams were supposed to be developed by August 1 but, as mentioned previously, they are not ready yet.

The school based Measure of Student Learning Committee (four chosen by UFT Chapter Leader and 4 chosen by Principal) can make a recommendation that the principal can either use or not for the Local 20%.

If the committee decides, and the principal agrees, to ignore the DOE targets for student growth and makes their own goals for each student, the DOE will only give teachers credit if the students meet the target goals. If the pupils exceed the goals, then teachers do not get any credit. Teachers only receive credit for exceeding expectations if they stick with the DOE's growth model.

If the committee does nothing or the principal rejects recommendations, then there is a default measurement which will use the school's scores on the Regents or grade 4 or 8 State Math and ELA exams for the local measure of each teacher.

It would have been helpful if we could have asked questions to the presenter but she cut the first question off immediately by saying that if she took the time to answer questions then the presentation would go past 4:30 pm and we would have to extend the time.  There was not much interest in extending.  Instead, DOE facilitators were situated by each table and would answer specific individual questions for particular schools but we never heard the overall concerns.

Remember, if a teacher is ineffective on these 2 Measure of Student Learning parts of the annual review, then he/she will automatically be rated ineffective overall according to the state.

Since the test scores basically are the main priority in the annual rating, the new Danielson observations kind of becomes secondary.  Needless to say, these observations will be a burden for teachers and administrators as instead of a minimum of one observation per year for teachers on maximum pay scale or one per term for other tenured teachers in the old evaluation system, the new minimum is four observations.

One will be a full period formal with a pre and post observation conference and three will be unannounced and last at least fifteen minutes. The teacher can also choose to have at least six informal observations instead of the one formal and three informal. The administration must give some kind of feedback but can have up to 90 school days to write the observation reports.  There is no maximum number of observations.

Teachers earn 60% of the rating based on scoring points on the Danielson Framework which breaks teaching down into 4 domains with 22 total components. Even though it isn't supposed to be, Danielson is as subjective as the old observation system.

To summarize Danielson briefly, if the Principal likes or at least respects the teacher, he/she can easily find ways to give the teacher sufficient points to pass under Danielson.

At the end of the school year, all of the observation points and the test score results will somehow be added up to magically give each teacher a rating of either highly effective, effective, developing or ineffective.  Two consecutive ineffective ratings will lead to a presumption of incompetence and shift the burden of proof to tenured teachers to show he/she is not incompetent in termination proceedings.

As this system is very difficult to fully comprehend (even after sitting there all day listening to the DOE presentation) or explain and is being developed as we go along, I recommend people document everything from day one and keep a computer record and paper file of everything related to "Advance".

My overall view has not changed after the professional development. The state evaluation law is clearly biased against teachers.   If the Legislature intended that a teacher rated ineffective on growth in student test scores must be rated ineffective overall, then conversely if a teacher is rated effective on the student test scores, shouldn't the teacher then be automatically rated effective overall?

If a principal or assistant principal wants to play "gottcha", it will be easy under Danielson observations and the growth the students of that particular teacher show on test score results won't save the teacher's rating. At least the test scores will be available as evidence if administration tries to fire that teacher. How much weight arbitrators will give to the test scores cannot be known now.

I realize this is a very short and incomplete report on the evaluation system which leads to many more questions than it answers but I can state with certainty that "Advance" is bad news for teachers and principals.  Basically, it is an unworkable mess that will prove nothing about teacher effectiveness.

The number one priority of the United Federation of Teachers and our state affiliate New York State United Teachers this year should be to get the State Legislature to repeal the system.  Compared to "Advance" the way we have been evaluated up to now has been highly effective.

SUMMER NATIONAL NEWS NOT POSITIVE FOR WORKING PEOPLE BUT POCKETS OF RESISTANCE STILL EXIST

As a member of the opposition to the United Federation of Teacher's ruling Unity Caucus since 1995, I am used to disappointment. The UFT has set up an electoral system that all but guarantees that the ruling party will remain in power until the union is dissolved.

After spending this past school year fighting against the repulsive new teacher evaluation system that will rate teachers on unreliable student test scores that have huge margins of error (junk science), while waiting in vain for a decision on a lawsuit that the UFT filed in 2011 to save my school and many others from being closed, and also running in yet another futile UFT election bid, I decided I needed a couple of weeks to recharge my batteries this summer before thinking about going back to school to figure out how to deal with being rated based on Commissioner John King's junk science and the sadness of being in a 121 year old school that will be in its final year.

Unfortunately for teachers and other working people across this country, the news this summer has been quite gloomy.

Philadelphia is laying off thousands of school employees including many teachers. Chicago mayor Rahm Emmanuel is exacting revenge on the Chicago Teachers' Union, who had the audacity to exercise their right to strike last year.  Rahm is closing many schools and laying off 4% of the teaching staff. He is blaming pension obligations but the Chicago Teachers Union argues that the pensions are not the cause.  North Carolina's legislature reached a deal that would end teacher tenure (NY has weakened tenure but some protections still exist). To top it all off, Detroit is in bankruptcy proceedings.  This is the largest city in the US to go under.

Michigan's constitution is supposed to protect pensions but federal bankruptcy law may supersede the state constitution so Detroit may be leading the way for the greedy elite, who are out to destroy the public sector, to set a precedent by cutting public worker pensions.  This country has virtually eliminated defined benefits pensions in the private sector and now the austerity crowd has their eye on the public sector.

I don't think our public sector pensions in New York are in any imminent danger. I agree with economist Paul Krugman that the state and local government pension problem is totally exaggerated for political purposes. In addition, we are not facing layoffs in New York City as in other places however it is clear working people across the land are under a vicious attack and our unions are the best hope for a unified push back.

Since New York City is still somewhat of a union town and teacher unions, while far less powerful than in the past, could potentially have some real sway if we mobilized our collective strength properly.  Is our union at the local and/or national level, leading that fight for dignity in the workplace?

In a word the answer is no.

About ten years ago when I was on the UFT Executive Board, then President Randi Weingarten took to the podium at a meeting and from the chair launched a nasty tirade directed at my friends Ellen Fox, Ed Beller and me.  She told us that we didn't understand the forces we are up against.  She chartered a course for the union to be conciliatory so we would not be crushed. Ten years later teacher unions are being annihilated and unions in general are weaker than they have been in my lifetime but Randi, now heading the national American Federation of Teachers, is still trying not to alienate the teacher bashing crowd.  On Monday, she told an AFT gathering in a speech that we have to get rid of bad teachers. How about defending us Randi?

As for her successors at the UFT, they continue to rave about how wonderful it is for New York City teachers to be rated on junk science in the new evaluation system. Jackie Bennett, who I was lucky enough to win an award with in 2011, is now the person designated by the ruling Unity Caucus to defend the indefensible teacher evaluation system.

She spends many paragraphs in a UFT's Edwize blog piece telling us how having ineffective scores from 0-12 out of 20 points total is a great gain for NYC teachers from Commissioner John King's recent decree on evaluations because in the rest of the state the ineffective scores are 0-2 points on the two 20% parts of our annual rating that will be based on student learning measures.  40% of our rating in theory will be based on student test scores or other growth measures; the other 60% will be based on multiple observations. Then Jackie writes this paragraph:

"One last question remains: Why did the state set the problematic cut scores for the rest of the state in the first place?  Basically, the state wanted cuts that would make it impossible for teachers who were rated Ineffective in two different learning measures to overcome that rating, even if that teacher received all 60 of the observation points.  The statewide cuts do that, but they also create the potential for many additional Ineffective (ratings) that simply can't be justified in any system.  For NYC, all of those additional Ineffectives have been eliminated, but the state has still included language to the effect that a teacher who was rated as Ineffective both learning measures must be considered Ineffective overall, regardless of the score.  That is an outcome that would have affected us in the previous system and would affect us in this one as well."

Translation: If the students do not do well on the tests, the teacher will be rated ineffective for the year but that teacher will get more points in NYC as compared to the rest of the state. 12+12+60= 84 which will still be ineffective.  65 was supposed to be a passing grade.

Our national union leader is telling us that bad teachers should be fired while locally the union hierarchy is defending rating teachers based on junk science.  Is a bad teacher someone who is rated poorly based on King's garabage? We need new union heads for sure, which as Reality Based Educator rightly points out, does not guarantee victory, but at least we would be fighting back. Chicago Teachers Union president Karen Lewis, in spite of the setbacks, recently was reelected overwhelmingly by her rank and file. Teachers in particular and workers in general will step up if given the opportunity to fight back. 

The UFT should be following the example set by the Buffalo Federation of Teachers led by Phillip Rumore. They continue to do everything they can to prevent teachers from being rated based on unreliable student test scores. The UFT, and our state union NYSUT, should be looking to California for advice on how to defy the Obama administration on education policy. The golden state is skillfully pursuing policy that recognizes that poverty, not bad teachers, is the main cause of the achievement gap in education.

When we arrive back at school in September and our UFT officials from the Unity Caucus tell us how lucky we are not to be in Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago or North Carolina, tell them how fortunate we would be if we had union representation like they do in Buffalo, Chicago and California instead of our appeasers.

Finally, since Norm Scott wrote about how he spent last week, I'll show you the highlight of my week below. I don't think I have to explain that this was my daughter Kara's birthday party.

.

PRESS CONFERENCE TO OPPOSE CO-LOCATION OF NEW SCHOOL AT MARTIN VAN BUREN HS

Excellent group out in the heat today discussing opposition to the proposed co-location of a new school within Martin Van Buren High School in Queens.

It was encouraging to see the elected officials, community groups, teachers, bloggers and students out there in 90+ degree weather to stand up for a comprehensive high school.

A local Civic Leader addresses the media flanked by the Deputy Queens Borough President, Councilman Mark Weprin, Assemblyman David Weprin and Senator Tony Avella

Here is a link to some video and commentary over at Pissed Off Teacher.

EASTERN QUEENS COMMUNITY FIGHTING CO-LOCATION OF A NEW SCHOOL AT MARTIN VAN BUREN HS

One of the more sinister methods the Department of Education uses to undermine comprehensive high schools is by opening up new schools within buildings that were not designed to hold multiple schools. This hurts the established school in a number of ways.

The student population of the comprehensive school is reduced to accommodate the new school.  This in turn leads to a huge budget cut in the established school which leads to massive staff and program reductions.

The students in the established school are also made to feel that they are second class citizens in their own school as they see the new school lavished with all kinds of state of the art equipment and facilities in their part of the building as the DOE pours start up funds into the new school.

The DOE can then compare the two schools and find the established one lacking.

Since the DOE lost in arbitration and in court in its attempt to close down multiple large high schools last year, they have responded by co-locating many new schools in these buildings to try to shrink them and then make it easier to shut them in the future.

One such school is Martin Van Buren High School in Eastern Queens.

This school community is fighting back.  They will be holding a press conference on Monday, July 15 at 1:00 pm. at the school which is located at 230-17 Hillside Avenue.  Two supportive elected officials are leading the fight against the co-location: Senator Tony Avella and Councilman Mark Weprin. They will be joined by students, parents and community members.

To get to Van Buren, take the F Train to 179th Street and then it is a short bus ride on the Q43 to be dropped off right to the front of the school.

COVERAGE OF PROTEST AT TWEED

There is good video and some media coverage of yesterday's protest at Tweed by the Pan American International High School community demanding a fair investigation of allegations that the principal made racist remarks against staff members she was terminating.

Here is a link to more Channel 7 coverage of this story.

PROTEST AT TWEED ON MONDAY AGAINST PAN AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL PRINCIPAL'S RACIST ACTIONS

It is encouraging to see faculty fight back when a principal engages in what is clearly unacceptable behavior.  

Below is a press release for a scheduled protest at Tweed on Monday.

Here is a link to an ABC 7 news story on this situation.

The folks at Pan American International HS can certainly add this blog to its list of supporters.  

Click here to RSVP on Facebook: http://tinyurl.com/kt3x2yp

WHAT? Protest demanding an immediate, rapid and unbiased investigation by the Chancellor's office into allegations that a Queens Principal called African American teachers she was firing "big lipped," "nappy haired," and "gorillas."

WHEN? 12 noon, Monday July 8th. 

WHERE? In front of Chancellor Walcott's offices at DOE Headquarters in Tweed Courthouse, 52 Chambers St., Manhattan (4/5/6/N to City Hall)

ENDORSEMENTS:  Teachers and staff from PAIHS Elmhurst and around the city, Councilwoman Julissa Ferreras, Assemblyman Francisco Moya, Kevin Powell and BK Nation, United Federation of Teachers, Movement of Rank and File Educators, New Action/UFT, Badass Teachers Association, Man UP, Hiphop SUV, Island Voice, Campaign to End the New Jim Crow. [List of endorsements in formation]. 

CONTACT: 

Peter Lamphere, peter.lamphere@gmail.com, 917-969-5658

Kevin Powell, kevin@kevinpowell.net, 718-399-8149

WHY? Pan American International High School will be without any African American teachers next year, because two teachers have been fired after a Queens Principal, Minerva Zanca, made racist comments about them in closed-door meetings with her assistant principal.  The third African American teacher is leaving the school because of severe budget cuts to her hugely successful Theater program which were racially motivated.

We demand that there is a full investigation into these allegations and, if they are substantiated, that the DOE hold the principal accountable to its zero-tolerance policy against discrimination.  We also demand that the discontinuances of the personnel involved (Teachers John Flanagan and Heather Hightower and AP Anthony Riccardo) be reversed.

Local Councilmember Julissa Ferreras says "The allegations brought against Ms. Zanca are very serious and concern me deeply. As a representative of an extremely diverse district, I cannot and will not stand for this type of behavior."

Kevin Powell, president of BK Nation, adds "It is not only important to have high standards for our public school teachers but we must also support the good ones, like these teachers, who are completely dedicated to their young people. I find it unacceptable that a principal can engage in this kind of conduct without any repercussions. We are not going to stop until due justice and process is served here."

See media coverage on WABC7, WNYC , PIX11 for more details. Click here to RSVP on facebook:http://tinyurl.com/kt3x2yp

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Haz click aquí para la invitación en Facebook: http://tinyurl.com/kt3x2yp

¿QUÉ? Una demostración para exigir una investigación inmediata, rápida e imparcial por la oficina del rector de educación sobre las acusaciones de que la directora de un colegio en Queens refirió a dos maestros afro-americanos como “gorilas",  "de pelo churrusco" y con "labios grandotes.”

¿DÓNDE? En frente de la oficina del Rector de Educación, Dennis Walcott. 52 Chambers St., Manhattan, la sede del Departamento de Educación  (Trenes 4/5/6/N a City Hall).

PATROCINIOS: Los maestros de varios lugares alrededor de la ciudad y facultad del colegio Pan American International High School, Concejal Julissa Ferreras, Asambleista Francisco Moya, Kevin Powell y BK Nation, la Federación Unida de Maestros (conocida como UFT por sus siglas en ingles)Movement of Rank and File Educators, New Action/UFT Badass Teachers Association, Man UP, Hiphop SUV, Island Voice, Campaign to End the New Jim Crow. [Lista de patrocinios en formación]

CONTACTA: 

Peter Lamphere, peter.lamphere@gmail.com, 917-969-5658

Kevin Powell, kevin@kevinpowell.net, 718-399-8149

 ¿POR QUÉ? El año escolar entrante, Pan American International High School quedará sin maestros afro-americanos porque dos maestros fueron despedidos después de que la directora, Minerva Zanca, hizo algunos comentarios racistas tras las puertas privadas de su oficina con Anthony Riccardo, su vicedirector. Una tercera afro-americana también se aparta de su posición como directora de teatro porque ha sufrido demasiadas cortas a su presupuesto a mano de Zanca, que fueron motivadas por razones raciales.

Estamos exigiendo que haya una investigación a fondo en cuanto a estas alegaciones y, en caso de que salgan verdaderas, que el Departamento de Educación ejerza su política de no tolerancia contra discriminación. También exigimos que las descontinuaciones de los dos maestros, John Flanagan y Heather Hightower, y el vicedirector, Anthony Riccardo se inviertan.

La Consejal local Julissa Ferreras dice "Las acusaciones presentadas contra la Sra. Zanca son muy graves y me preocupan profundamente. Como representante de un distrito muy diverso, no puedo y no voy a permitir este tipo de comportamiento." 

Kevin Powell, el presidente de BK Nation, asegura que, "No solo es importante tener estándares altos para nuestros maestros de escuelas públicas, sino también hay que apoyar a los buenos maestros, como estos, que son completamente dedicados a sus estudiantes. Lo considero inaceptable que una directora pueda participar en este tipo de conducta sin consecuencias. No vamos a dejar de luchar hasta que la justicia apropiada y el proceso adecuado se hayan realizado. 

Vean la cobertura de los medios de comunicación en WABC7, WNYC y Noticias PIX11 para más detalles. 

Haz click aquí para la invitación en Facebook: http://tinyurl.com/kt3x2yp