Sunday 26 April 2015

Mitchell Robinson on Silencing Teachers

I received the note below from a former student who is now a teacher. For obvious reasons, I won't identify her or where she teaches, but--shockingly--her story is becoming all too common...

"We had a union meeting yesterday where they warned us that the governor is going after the certificates of teachers that opted out their kids (of the state tests). The governor says it breaks our contract agreeing to protect and follow educational laws. Is this legal? Teachers are being targeted and warned to be extremely careful, especially on public media. I was just curious on your thoughts."

This theme of administrators and elected officials threatening teachers if they speak out publicly against tests, the Common Core State Standards, or other education policies seems to be growing stronger and louder recently, with reports of similar stories popping up in New Mexico (http://dianeravitch.net/2015/04/19/audrey-beardsley-the-silencing-of-the-educators-a-dangerous-trend/), Louisiana (http://www.westernjournalism.com/teachers-district-facing-retribution-criticizing-common-core/), New York (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/city-teacher-lost-fellowship-revealing-administration-fudged-regents-exam-court-papers-article-1.1990734), Arizona (http://www.azcentral.com/story/ejmontini/2015/03/27/legislature-arizona-school-board-association-sb-1172-free-speech-elections/70556134/), Missouri (http://www.stevenlin83.com/teachersfreepress/this-is-why-teachers-need-tenure-missouri-teacher-suspended-for-speaking-out/), and Michigan (http://stopcommoncoreinmichigan.com/2014/03/teachers-silenced/).

In Rochester, NY, an email from an administrator to the city's principals asked them to keep a list of teachers who might have shared information on testing for possible disciplinary action:

"An email sent from a high-level Rochester City School District official to principals is causing concern among teachers.

Chief of Schools Beverly Burrell-Moore sent the email Monday afternoon to principals she supervises. The email asks them to share names of teachers who have encouraged parents to refuse to allow their children to take state exams. 
"Per your building, please identify teachers who have sent letters or made phone calls to parents encouraging them to opt out their children from the NYS Assessments.  Also, identify teachers who you have evidence as utilizing their classrooms as 'political soap boxes.'  I need this updated  information no later than Tuesday morning for follow-up," the email states. (http://www.rochesterhomepage.net/story/d/story/rcsd-official-give-me-names-of-teachers-encouragin/69585/t4V1RVAqHk-lhmvN3pcetA)
Audrey Amrein Beardsley, a professor of education at Arizona State University, and the author of one of my favorite education blogs on the web, VAMBOOZLED, reports: "New Mexico now requires teachers to sign a contractual document that they are not to 'diminish the significance or importance of the tests” or they could lose their jobs. Teachers are not to speak negatively about the tests or say anything negatively about these tests in their classrooms or in public; if they do they could be found in violation of their contracts.' Beardsley wonders about the legality, and even the constitutionality of this sort of action: 'As per a related announcement released by the ASBA, this “could have a chilling effect on the free speech rights of school and district officials' throughout the state but also (likely) beyond if this continues to catch on. School officials may be held 'liable for a $5,000 civil fine just for sharing information on the positive or negative impacts of proposed legislation to parents or reporters.'”

While there is no doubt that these moves are indeed a "chilling" development in the education "reform" movement, I believe that they also reveal a quickly growing sense of fear and confusion among those in the reform community regarding the viability of their agenda. Indeed, the surprising strength of the "Opt Out" movement in New York, where as many as 200,000 students have reportedly refused to sit for the state's tests, has led to 
calls demanding the resignation of Merryl Tisch, Chancellor of the NYS Board of Regents.
 
If there is a silver lining to these threats it may be the impending crumbling of the reform agenda under the increased scrutiny from the public, the media and teachers. For far too long, policy "leaders" like Chancellor Tisch, Governors Cuomo, Kasich and Snyder, and Sec. of Education Duncan have responded to criticism of their agenda with either deafening silence or dismissive pandering, such as accusations that "painted parents as confused patsies of a labor action." Now, these feeble rejoinders are being exposed for what they have been all along: weak and arrogant responses to the legitimate demands for accountability from those so negatively impacted by these destructive policies.
 
These "leaders" are clearly scared, and they have every right to be. Now is the time to step up the pressure, and not let our voices be silenced. We are fighting for our students, our colleagues and our profession.
 
Let students learn, let teachers teach, and get the politicians out of education.
 
Mitchell Robinson
 
Mitchell Robinson is associate professor and chair of music education, and coordinator of the music student teaching programat Michigan State University. Robinson has held previous appointments as assistant professor and coordinator of the music education area at the University of Connecticut; assistant professor of school and community music education at the Eastman School of Music in Rochester, N.Y.; and director of wind activities and wind ensemble conductor at the University of Rochester. Robinson’s public school teaching experience includes 10 years as an instrumental music teacher, music department facilitator and high school assistant principal in Fulton, N.Y.
 
Robinson was awarded the 1997 Reston Prize from Arts Education Policy Review for his analysis of arts education policy, and the 1999 Research Award from the International Network of Performing and Visual Arts Schools. He recently concluded a term as Editor of the Music Educators Journal, and has served on the editorial/advisory boards of Arts Education Policy Review, the Journal of Music Teacher Education, the Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, the Music Educators Journal, the International Journal of Education and the Arts, Research and Issues in Music Education, and the Desert Skies Research Symposium. His publications have appeared in Arts Education Policy Review, Music Educators Journal, Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, Journal of Music Teacher Education, American Music Teacher, and the American School Board Journal. He was a chapter author for Great Beginnings for Music Teachers: Mentoring and Supporting New Teachers, published by MENC: The National Association for Music Education in 2003, and contributed a chapter to Teaching Music in the Urban Classroom, Volume 2: A Guide to Survival, Success, and Reform, published by Rowman & Littlefield Education. Robinson also contributed two chapters to the forthcoming Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research in American Music Education, and was asked to write the chapter on music (Music Teaching and Learning in a Time of Reform) for What Every Principal Needs to Know: Instructional Leadership for Equitable and Excellent Schools, which will be published this summer by Teachers College Press. Robinson also served for two years as scholar-in-residence for music for the Connecticut State Department of Education, where his work focused on beginning music teacher induction and support.
 
A founding member of the Instrumental Music Teacher Educators Association (IMTE), Robinson received B.F.A. degrees in music education and trumpet performancefrom the State University of New York at Buffalo, the M.M.Ed. from Hartt School of Music, a Certificate of Advanced Study in Educational Administration from the State University of New York-Oswego, and a Ph.D. in music education from the Eastman School of Music. He also pursued post-graduate studies in music education and conducting at Northwestern University.
 
Dr. Robinson lives in Okemos, MI, with his wife Cathy, an elementary music teacher, their two sons, Jacob and Drew, and Buddy the Dog.
 

Selected Publications

Book Chapters
 
Robinson, M. (2015).  A Tale of Two Institutions: Or . . .Myths and Musings on Work/Life Balance.  In Theoharis, G. and Dotger, S. (Eds.), On The High Wire: Education Professors Walk Between Work And Parenting.  NY: Information Age Press.
 
Robinson, M. (2014).  Changing the Conversation: Considering Quality in Music Education Qualitative Research. In Conway, C. (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research in American Music Education.  NY: Oxford University Press.
 
Robinson, M. (2014).  The Politics of Publication: Voices, Venues and Ethics. In Conway, C. (Ed.), Oxford Handbook of Qualitative Research in American Music Education.  NY: Oxford University Press.

 

Robinson, M. (2012).  Music Teaching and Learning in a Time of Reform.  In Theoharis, G. and Brooks, J. (Eds.), What Every Principal Needs to Know to CreateEquitable and Excellent Schools.  NY: Teachers College Press.
 
 
Articles
Robinson, M. (2015).  The Inchworm and the Nightingale: On the (Mis)use of Data in Music Teacher Evaluation Arts Education Policy Review, 116, (1), 9-21.
From the Band Room to the General Music Classroom: Why Instrumentalists Choose to Teach General Music. (accepted for publication). Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 2010.

Saturday 2 March 2013

Francesco Portleos' Federal Lawsuit Survives Motion To Dismiss By NYC Law Dept.

Federal Judge to DOE: MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED

PVDOE


For those of you who are following my crazy saga, you know I filed a Federal lawsuit (Portelos v DOE) last June. It is against the City, DOE, and Berta Dreyfus IS 49 Principal Linda Hill. They attempted to silence a parent, who is an educator, who has a backbone and is apparently thousand times savvier than them…the failed.
The city attempted to dismiss my case and my attorney  Bryan Glass, Esq., just sent me great news this morning; honorable Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf has denied that motion. In non legal words…Game On! 
We start deposing witnesses soon. We are starting with Principal Linda Hill, former SLT Chairperson Susanne Abramowitz, former UFT Chapter Leader Richard Candia and former NYC DOE HR Director Andrew Gordon. 
As a matter of self-preservation, a man needs good friends or ardent enemies, for the former instruct him and the latter take him to task.” the Greek Philosopher Diogenes
Read the full document here: Portelos v DOE MTD Denied
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
———————————————————–X
FRANCESCO PORTELOS,
Plaintiff,
- against -
CITY OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK CITY
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; DENNIS
WALCOTT, CHANCELLOR OF NEW YORK
CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION;
LINDA HILL, PRINCIPAL OF I.S. 49, IN HER
OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY,
Defendants.
———————————————————–X
ORDER
12-CV-3141(RRM)(VMS)
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, United States District Judge.
On June 22, 2012, plaintiff Francesco Portelos filed this action seeking monetary and equitable relief against defendants the City of New York, the New York City Department of Education, Dennis Walcott, and Linda Hill (collectively “defendants”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York Civil Service Law (“N.Y. C.S.L.”) § 75-b. Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his First Amendment and state law rights by retaliating against him for reporting fraud and misconduct at I.S. 49. (Compl. (Doc. No. 1).) Before the Court is defendants’ December 17, 2012 motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. (Mot. to Dismiss (Doc. No. 17).) For the reasons set forth below, defendants’ motion is DENIED in its entirety.
Read the full document here: Portelos v DOE MTD Denied

Sunday 24 February 2013

The Lawless NYC Department of Education

Bloggers have noticed that there seems to be a disconnect between what has happened to the lawfully bargained rights of teachers and the "law". This is a necessary and important discussion which has been ignored for 10 years as political cliques try to hide the immense harm that has befallen teachers, parents, and children under Mayor Bloomberg and the NYC Department of Education. Read my comments after the blog post below.

One of the newest additions to the outcry about this mess in NYC is below, from a great blog named "Accountable Talk":

Some Legal Questions

Accountable Talk
LINK
You've probably heard that a judge barred Governor Cuomo from stealing $250 million from NYC schools to satisfy his ego. The judge correctly ruled that children should not be punished because the city and UFT failed to reach a deal. This, to me, brings up a question.

Why isn't the UFT using the courts to prevent Cuomo from imposing an evaluation system on NYC teachers? Obviously, I'm a teacher and not a lawyer, but it seems to me there's a strong case here. Our contract, which was collectively bargained, is still in force and there is no provision in it for a new evaluation of any kind. Since when does the state have the power to unilaterally alter a contract because it doesn't like the terms? The few law courses I took emphasized the fact that contract law is pretty solid in this country. Has that changed? How can the state, which has a stake in the outcome of this dispute, simply choose to override a valid contract signed and agreed to by both parties?

Furthermore, any evaluation system imposed on us would be in direct opposition to the Triborough Amendment to the Taylor Law, which states that a collectively bargained contract must stay in force until a new contract is signed. How can the governor just vacate that law? If he does, would that invalidate the rest of the Taylor Law as well, and allow teachers to strike without penalty?

If Cuomo can force this contract alteration on us, what would stop him from passing a law mandating a 50% cut in salary for all city workers if he wishes to? It's the same thing. Collective bargaining itself is threatened if the state decides that it can simply alter contracts it doesn't like.

I'd appreciate the opinion of any lawyer out there on these questions. I think the courts would enforce existing contracts and tell the Gov. to stick his power grab. So, how about it?

2 comments:

Anonymous said...
The UFT is supporting these changes in law.
Mr. Talk said...
That is true. However, if a bad system is forced on us, it might be possible to overturn it in court. Individual teachers could sue on the grounds that they were illegally fired while covered under the 2007 contract that should still be in force.

Saturday 23 February 2013

NYS Supreme Court Judge Manuel Mendez Says NYC Cannot Deny $260 Million To Schools


Judge Manuel Mendez (back row center) With The Young People's Chorus
My opinion:
Judge Mendez vacated the six-month suspension without pay decision made by Arbitrator David Hyland against my dear friend Chris Asch. In my opinion, Mendez is one of the best judges in our Court System right now.

Betsy Combier

Judge Says State Cannot Withhold Aid to City Schools Over Teacher Evaluation Impasse
State officials, for now, cannot stop $260 million in aid from flowing into New York City’s schools as a penalty for the city’s failure to iron out a plan for evaluating public school teachers, a state judge ruled this week.
The preliminary injunction was a blow to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo’s promise to withhold the money after the Bloomberg administration and the city’s teachers’ union missed a Jan. 17 deadline for developing an evaluation system for the 75,000 teachers, which is also a core element of the state’s winning a lucrative federal grant.
Though the financial penalty was intended to motivate the two sides to act, they did not, and the judge, Justice Manuel J. Mendez of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, issued a ruling on Tuesday barring the state’s education commissioner from deducting any school aid due the city until the matter is decided in court.
Justice Mendez, in a four-page decision made public on Thursday, ruled that “innocent children,” particularly the neediest among them, could be hurt by financial cuts, as the plaintiffs had argued. He also agreed with the plaintiffs’ central argument that the matter revolves around a child’s constitutional right to a sound basic education.
“This decision is a substantial victory for all of New York City’s students,” said Michael A. Rebell, a lawyer who filed suit against the state on Feb. 5 on behalf of a group including nine parents and their children. “The judge clearly indicated that the state’s irrational penalty places innocent children at academic risk.”
State Supreme Court Justice Manuel Mendez delivers remarks during his swearing-in ceremony at Isabella Geriatric Center at 515 Audubon Ave.

Reaction to the decision underscored the bitterness over the issue, first outlined in 2010 state law.
Catherine T. Nolan, a Democrat from Queens and the chairwoman of the State Assembly’s education committee, called the ruling “tremendous,” adding, “No one should ever use formula-driven aid to punish kids.”
A spokesman for the state attorney general’s office, whose lawyers had argued the case, declined to comment. Dennis Tompkins, a spokesman for the education commissioner, John B. King Jr., said it would be “inappropriate to comment” now, given the department’s role in the process. And Matthew Wing, a spokesman for the governor, noted that the judge’s ruling was a preliminary injunction and said that the state would appeal.
Mr. Rebell said he was prepared to fight any appeal.
Micah Lasher, the executive director of StudentsFirstNY, an education advocacy organization, pointed out that Justice Mendez had indicated that there were other ways to ensure that evaluation plans were put in place without lashing the issue to financial penalties. But he said it was unclear if the decision might affect districts around the state where such penalties could be sought.
“The ruling is a huge deal, potentially jeopardizing a key part of the evaluation law affecting not just the city, but the whole state,” Mr. Lasher said. “But the governor could use the opportunity to figure out how to make teacher evaluations permanent without putting funds at risk.”
In a statement, Howard Wolfson, a deputy mayor in the Bloomberg administration, laid the blame at the union, the United Federation of Teachers, saying, “We’ve said all along that students should not be penalized for the U.F.T.’s failure to negotiate.” He added, “Our goal has been and continues to be a fair and effective evaluation system.”
Dick Riley, a union spokesman, replied: “If the mayor had not blown up the teacher evaluation deal, this lawsuit wouldn’t have been necessary.”