The heroes of Newtown

Kudos to the Baltimore Sun for the following editorial that ran on Tuesday 12/18/12.

The heroes of Newtown

Our view: The strength and courage of teachers and school staff — the kind of public employees so often scorned of late — are the revelation of Sandy Hook

As the nation continues this week to deal with the grief and heartache left behind by the murder of 26 children and adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School last Friday, let there also be a moment set aside for exultation. Let a banner be raised for the heroes of Newtown, Conn.: the educators who sprang into action to protect the young students in their charge.

We don't know how many lives were saved by the alert and brave actions of the faculty and staff at Sandy Hook, but we suspect they were many. Yet how many among us should stand ashamed today for showing so little respect for such public employees — mocking teachers, in particular, for their cost to taxpayers in salary and benefits — and failing to appreciate how willingly many educators stand prepared to lay down their lives for our children?

Rarely are teachers given the kind of respect afforded soldiers, firefighters or police officers, but how else to describe Principal Dawn Hochsprung but as a first responder? We now know that it was she, school psychologist Mary Sherlach and Vice Principal Natalie Hammond who first confronted the heavily armed Adam Lanza in the hallway. Only Ms. Hammond survived that initial effort to subdue the intruder.

Four other employees, all teachers, died in the shooting. Anne Marie Murphy, a special education teacher, was killed attempting to literally shield her students with her own body.

Meanwhile, stories continue to emerge from Sandy Hook of teachers who helped lead their students to safety, who hid them away and remained level-headed despite the threat, who calmly instructed them to be brave, who stood ready to defend them until they were certain the knocking on their locked doors came from police and not the perpetrator.

That the shooter had to smash his way into the school and not simply enter an unlocked door was due to the security precautions instituted in recent years by the late principal. The school had practiced a "lock-down" drill before the fateful day. Ultimately, Ms. Hochsprung helped provide both the first and last line of defense for her students.

How many among us are certain we would behave so bravely in a similar situation? The military train for that kind of sacrifice, but the faculty and staff of Sandy Hook had no such preparation. What code of conduct informed their choices?

It is common these days to bemoan the state of public education and question whether the next generation will be able to compete in the global economy. Among the concerns are wide disparities in educational outcomes based on wealth, race and class; high dropout rates; and low science and math achievement compared to other industrial countries. Meanwhile, the economic downturn and the strain it has put on the financing of government, including public education, have made educators easy targets for scorn.

Not all teachers are saints, any more than all police officers, corporate executives or newspaper editorialists are. But what happened in Newtown — and what continues to happen in schools across America as faculty comfort and care for students unnerved by the events in Connecticut — ought to be a wake-up call to America.

Last August, it was a guidance counselor named Jesse Wasmer who was chiefly credited with wrestling a shotgun away from a Perry Hall High School 15-year-old who had taken it to school and seriously injured a fellow student. Somehow, he also chose to put himself in harm's way in order to protect the lives of the innocent youngsters around him.

Teachers and other public school employees deserve more respect than to be vilified as lazy, overpaid union thugs, or any of the other various taunts that have been hurled their way in recent years. In some states, they are been stripped of bargaining rights. Often, they are cited as a threat to public education and not its chief asset.

We adopt standardized testing of students, in part, because we don't trust that teachers are doing their best. Too often, we judge them harshly for not achieving the near-impossible: creating a model citizenry from the imperfect products that show up at their doorstep.

Next time we discuss the state of education, let us also recall those images of teachers leading children out of harm's way in Newtown or those half-dozen adults who died in the line of duty. Public educators deserve our respect, not just for what happened in Sandy Hook but for their extraordinary, daily devotion to the education, health and welfare of the next generation.

Why Union? So you don't have the right to work for less

Right now Michigan workers are fighting the railroading through their legislature of laws that are attempting to kill unions in that state. These so called “Right to Work” (RTW) laws have purposely been given this misleading name to make people believe that unions were somehow keeping individuals from working.  Unions are legally obligated to represent every worker in a bargaining unit, regardless of membership.  RTW laws allow some workers to gain from the salary, benefits  and working conditions negotiated by a union without sharing in the costs of those negotiations. That’s why they should really be called “Right to be a Free Rider Laws.” RTW laws make it illegal for unions to collect fees from non-members, while still requiring that they get all the benefits from the collective bargaining that their dues paying co-workers support.

Proponents of such laws say that this will help workers do better. This is not the case. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics eight of the twelve states with the highest unemployment rates have RTW laws. Studies have shown that wages in states that have RTW laws in place are 3.2% lower than those who do not. Workers in RTW states are also less likely to receive employer sponsored health insurance and pensions.  Workers in RTW states experience a rate of workplace deaths that is 52.9 percent higher than in non-RTW states. 

Harold Meyerson's piece in The Washington Post highlights the ever widening gap we see with increasing corporate profits and declining wages for America's workforce. Meyerson notes:

"Defenders of right-to-work laws argue that they improve a state’s economy by creating more jobs. But an exhaustive study by economist Lonnie K. Stevans of Hofstra University found that states that have enacted such laws reported no increase in business start-ups or rates of employment."

This effort, being funded by right-wing billionaires like the Koch brothers and Dick Devos, is yet another attack on America’s working class and highlights why unions are so important to America's working class.  President Obama visited Michigan and had this to say about what is happening:

 “And by the way, what we shouldn't do. I've just got to say this, what we shouldn't be doing is trying to take away your rights to bargain for better wages and working conditions. These so-called right to work laws, they don't have to do with economics, they have everything to do with politics. What they're really talking about is giving you the right to work for less money.You only have to look to Michigan, where workers were instrumental in reviving the auto industry, to see how unions have helped build not just a stronger middle class but a stronger America. [...]We don't want a race to the bottom. We want a race to the top. America's not going to compete based on low skill, low wage, no workers’ rights. That's not our competitive advantage. There's always going to be some other country that can treat its workers worse.”

Another troubling part to this is the violation of basic democratic principals that have occurred. This is happening in a lame-duck session of Michigan's legislature and basic procedures have been tossed out the window:

 
Needless to say, unions like like the NEA, AFT, SEIU, the Teamsters and others are fighting to preserve workers rights, restore the democratic process and stop this from happening. Unions believe you have the right to a fair wage, fair benefits and good working conditions. We don't believe that you have a right to work for less.

Don't lower our certification standards

Below is a letter submitted by MSEA President Betty Weller to the Maryland State Board of Education on the "Option Four" amendment to the regulations covering teacher certification. There are currently three options (Master's Degree, Master's Equivalency, and National Board Certification) to renew or qualify for your Advanced Professional Certificate (APC) in the the state of Maryland. The State BOE wants to add an "Option Four," which would make qualification for, or renewal of, your APC based on your evaluation. 

Distinct from the other three routes to an APC, Option Four requires no professional development and no ongoing coursework. Unfortunately, teachers may choose Option Four as a quick and less rigorous method to secure or renew an APC, unaware that it may be the most difficult route in the end. The highly effective rating may be impacted by a change in assignments, grade level, content areas, new administrative staff, and the accuracy and validity of the evaluation system itself. Adopting "Option Four" would be premature since Maryland has not even adopted a uniform standard for highly effective teachers. Each local school system will define the standard differently.

The Professional Standards and Teacher Education Board (PSTEB) is still deliberating the issue and the fact that the State Board of Education is about to take action with those deliberations still ongoing, is unprecedented.  

MSEA is working with other state educational organizations to oppose this change in certification regulations and to preserve the high standards and credibility of our profession, and stands ready to work with MSDE to identify other alternatives for strengthening the profession.

RE:      Proposed Amendments to COMAR 13A.12.01.02

Maryland State Board of Education:

            As you know, for more than a year a certification workgroup has undertaken an examination of the current certification regulations with the intent of proposing regulatory changes.  This workgroup passed its recommendations to the Professional Standards and Teacher Education Board (PSTEB).  In its consideration of the recommendations, PSTEB engaged in extensive study and sought stakeholder input regarding the practical applications of the proposed changes and the impact those changes would have on student growth and teacher effectiveness.  As a result of this time and effort, PSTEB unanimously voted to reject Option 4, the Advanced Professional Certificate (APC) option that ties teacher certification to evaluation ratings.  MSEA supports PSTEB's decision and requests that the members of the State Board do so as well.

            MSEA strongly supports the strengthening of the current certification process, but in doing so we believe that rigorous and relevant professional development must continue to be a requirement for renewal.  As such, MSEA strongly supports the continuation of the Master’s Degree, Master’s equivalency, and National Board Certification as options to receiving an APC since each of these routes require teachers to engage in ongoing professional development and course work beyond the receipt of their undergraduate college degrees.  Studies have shown that such a requirement only serves to improve a teacher’s professional practice, which is essential in the development and maintenance of a more rigorous learning environment for students.

            Despite PSTEB's unanimous opposition to Option 4, the State Board has moved forward in its consideration of it. This option as currently written requires no professional development and no ongoing course work; it is entirely dependent upon the stroke of an evaluator’s pen.  Even with the new evaluation system, this process is prone to subjectivity, especially if the evaluators are not highly trained and skilled in how to conduct observations and gather data needed for the evaluation.  We have been working hard with our locals to recruit highly trained educators, upgrade the profession with higher standards, and collaborate with the Maryland State Department of Education to develop a highly effective evaluation system. Yet this evaluation system still needs to be tested for validity and reliability. Creating a new certification route that is dependent on an ambitious, but unproven, evaluation system invites subjectivity, unreliability, and potentially lowered standards into a process that is critical to ensuring the ongoing high quality of our schools.

            We share your goal to increase student achievement and to make sure every child is taught by highly effective teachers; however, we don’t believe that we can get there by making changes that have not been tested for validity and reliability.  Option 4, as currently proposed, devalues the profession and lowers standards, which is clearly contrary to our goals. We want Maryland to remain the number one school system in the nation.  To that end, when creating policies on which our schools and depend, we must take the time and care necessary to ensure those policies move us forward. 

            As president of the Maryland State Education Association and co-chair of the Council for Educator Effectiveness, I am requesting that we do as PSTEB recommended and reject Option 4, continue the dialogue, and utilize research and data prior to amending the certification structure.

            Thank you for your consideration.

Betty Weller

President, Maryland State Education Association

Submitted on behalf of MSEA

No Reason to Change How the MoCo Board of Education is Elected

Below is MCEA President Doug Prouty's testimony that was presented to the Montgomery County Legislative Delegation during their recent hearing on proposed Local Bills; concerning a proposal to change how the Montgomery County Board of Education is elected.

Good evening, members of the delegation. Thank you for this opportunity to testify tonight.

The Montgomery County Education Association is opposed to Local Bill MC 7-13 – the proposal to restructure the Montgomery County Board of Education. We believe that enacting this bill would be harmful to the Board, to MCPS and most importantly, to the students of MCPS.

To begin, we are uncertain as to the reason for this bill being introduced. There has been no public outcry over the number of members of the Board or about the way in which we elect the Board. The functioning of the Board has not been called into question. While any elected body will make decisions which are not universally popular, as you well know, there has been no widespread discontent with the way in which the Board oversees the school system. Quite the opposite - MCPS has become one of the most highly regarded school systems in the country under the watch of this Board and its predecessors.

We are most concerned about the proposal to change the way in which the members of the Board of Education are elected. The proposed change would promote parochialism and undermine the Board’s shared collective interest in meeting the needs of all students.

The current system for electing members of the Board of Education provides a balance that ensures that all regions of the county are represented on the Board, while ensuring that all Board members look out for the interests of all students, and not just the students in their part of the county.

Currently, five of the seven publicly elected Board of Education members must come from the five distinct geographic districts; ensuring that all regions of the county are represented on the Board. However because all Board candidates, including those five, need to run countywide for election, the system is designed to discourage the kind of provincialism that would arise if each district Board member was only accountable to the voters in their district.  

One does not need to look far to see school systems with district-elected school board members who get mired in the politics of fighting for resources for the schools in their own neighborhoods.

Under the smartly designed current system for elected school board members in Montgomery County, that tendency is kept in check by the need for Board of Education candidates to run for office countywide, and to be accountable to parents, taxpayers and voters countywide.

This is especially important in a county that is increasingly diverse in both socio-economic and racial terms. Think back to the early 00’s, when the Board of Education decided to differentiate resources to the ‘red zone’ schools based on the needs of those schools. Had Board members been elected by district, it may have been much more difficult to gain approval of this strategy; which has been vital in helping to improve the achievement of minority and poor students.

Imagine as well the formulation of the capital budget when a majority of the Board would be concerned only about the interests of their portion of the system, rather than weighing equally the needs of the entire county. This change would, inevitably, make the decision making processes of the Board more cumbersome and make consensus more difficult to achieve. Our students in MCPS would find that addressing the needs of all schools and all students may no longer be the first priority of the body charged with overseeing their education.

The change in the number of members of the Board also seems to be unnecessary. It would add administrative expenses to the system at a time when cuts continue in school level spending on classroom resources. It is a solution in search of a problem. There are elections to the Board of Education every two years. There is frequent turnover and there are frequent vacant seats. Some candidates win, some lose. There is always another election. There is no need to increase the size of the Board; and certainly not just because some candidates lose elections.

If one’s priority is improving the quality of education for all our students, there is no compelling reason to change the current governance structure of the Montgomery County Public Schools.

While there is much work still to be done to close the achievement gap, Montgomery County Public Schools continues to be one of the most highly rated, and highly respected, public school systems in the nation. Just last week, MCPS won accolades for its high level of AP course participation, its students’ average AP test scores, and the growing number of minority students taking, and succeeding, on AP tests.  The answers to continuing to improve our schools lay in our classrooms, not in changing the size or make-up of the governing board.

In short, we can find no reasonable rationale for this bill, and many unintended adverse consequences were it adopted. We urge you to oppose the passage of Local Bill 7-13.

Contact your state elected officials by clicking here to urge them to oppose the passage of Local Bill 7-13.

New ideas from a new generation of teachers

The following op ed column was published in the Washington Post on Friday November 30th, by Michael Stryer: Stryer, who is on leave as a high school teacher in Los Angeles, is a member of United Teachers Los Angeles and executive director of Teachers for a New Unionism. [Note the shout-out for MCEA two-thirds of the way through the article!].

What do you think? Post your comments and thoughts.

We have all heard about the dramatic changes in the American electorate and how, because he spoke to the concerns of the growing numbers of Hispanic, black, female and younger voters, President Obama was reelected despite adverse economic conditions.

Another critical demographic shift is occurring. This one is taking place, quietly, in teachers unions: Over the past several years, teachers who have spent 10 years or fewer in the classroom have become the dues-paying majority. The impact of this new majority is as important to the role of unions as the changing electorate is to presidential elections. These newer teachers, along with many longtime teachers, are looking for their unions to elevate the profession — not to sacrifice teaching quality for job security.

But the word is definitely not out. I’m a teacher and a union member — and a member of the new majority. Not long after the Chicago teachers strike ended, I had dinner with lifelong Democrats. Instead of support for a revitalized union movement or sympathy for the plight of teachers, the conversation included such comments as: “The last thing teachers unions think about are students,” “Teachers unions haven’t addressed teacher-quality issues, especially with the weakest teachers” and “Teachers unions have to start focusing on something other than pay and tenure.”

It was painful to hear this — especially because such sentiments accurately describe the situation in many large urban teachers unions. In smaller unions across the country, however, progressive teachers are committed to meeting student needs and advancing the profession. And the new majority is accelerating those changes.

The leaders of the biggest teachers unions, including in New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles, largely focus on narrow contractual protections to the detriment of teacher quality and student achievement, issues that are of critical concern to the new majority of teachers.

Unions in small and medium-size districts are taking a different approach. Eschewing top-down leadership, these unions are highly collaborative. As a result, their actions reflect their members’ priorities: improved student achievement and upgraded teacher quality.

At Green Dot Public Schools in Los Angeles, the union’s mission sets out that “every student deserves to be taught by an effective teacher.” The union reached a membership-ratified agreement last spring with management on a rigorous evaluation system that includes test data as 25 percent of a teacher’s total evaluation score.

In Connecticut, the New Haven Federation of Teachers abandoned its traditionally adversarial role and collaborated with both the school district and the mayor’s office to develop and implement an evaluation system that relies heavily on evidence of student progress — including the use of standardized tests and other measures. The new system, which is strongly supported by New Haven’s 1,600 unionized teachers, more effectively supports struggling teachers and identifies unacceptable performers and helps transition them out of the system.

In Maryland, the Montgomery County Education Association participates in a Peer Assistance and Review program that helps mentor new teachers and struggling veterans. It’s a program with real teeth: A panel composed equally of teachers and administrators has the power to remove teachers who fail to improve with mentoring.

Members of the Newark Teachers Union recently approved a contract tying teacher salaries to measures of effectiveness and giving teachers a leading role in establishing and monitoring those measures.

This encouraging transformation extends beyond small and medium-size districts. Increasingly, statewide teacher associations are collaboratively addressing teacher-quality and student achievement issues. In June, the Massachusetts Teachers Association supported statewide legislation requiring that teacher performance be a major factor in staffing and personnel decisions.

Signs of change are appearing in major urban unions. In New York, Boston and Los Angeles, teachers voice groups — representing the opinions of the new majority as well as those of many senior teachers — have become strong advocates for changes affecting teacher quality. Their efforts, combined with those of civil rights organizations calling for more attention to student achievement, and forces within the Democratic Party pushing for accountability, are putting tremendous pressure on entrenched leadership to adopt more responsive, democratic policies. Transformation of major teachers unions may happen in the near future.

The democratic system is at the heart of our unions’ governance. The majority of teachers believe that student achievement comes first. It’s only a matter of time until all teachers unions reflect that belief — and ardently work to support it.

Special Event: Back from the Labor Movement in Iraq

Wed., December 12, 7 p.m., Rockville Library
Featured Speaker: Gene Bruskin
Co-Convener of U.S. Labor Against the War

Cosponsors: Montgomery County Education Association;  UFCW 1994 MCGEO;  Peace Action Montgomery; New Beginnings Initiative

Labor leader Gene Bruskin has recently returned from a week in Basra, Iraq as part of a U.S. Labor Against the War (USLAW) delegation to the International Civil Society Solidarity Initiative conference.

The conference brought together trade unionists and other supporters from the U.S. and Europe with women's, student, environmental and other Iraqi organizations seeking to develop popular campaigns for labor rights and justice for Iraqi working people.  The USLAW delegation had extensive conversations with Iraqi union leaders that led to the creation of a signed agreement calling for international support for a united campaign for labor rights in Iraq. Unions in Iraq are still largely illegal and are governed by Saddam Hussein's 1987 anti-union declaration. 

On Dec. 12, join Gene for an informative discussion on Iraq. We’ll discuss what it is like for ordinary Iraqis now that the U.S. military has mostly left the country. What did we leave behind? What does this say about “wars of choice”? What was the impact of the war on the labor movement? What can we do now?

USLAW consists of 200 labor organizations across the U.S. that advocate spending public money for human needs, not unnecessary foreign wars.

Teachers Union Says "Stop Blaming the County’s Budget Problems on the School System"

MCEA Press Release: November 29, 2012

Today, the Montgomery County Education Association (MCEA), the union representing more than 12,000 teachers in the Montgomery County Public Schools, called on county elected officials to stop blaming the school system for the County’s budget problems.

According to the County Council’s own recent report (from their Office of Legislative Oversight), the average increase in the MCPS budget over the last decade has been 4.9%. The average increase in the county government budget over the past decade has also been 4.9% (see Table 1 below). How can the school system be blamed for the county’s budget problems if the schools budget has been increasing at the same rate as the county government’s budget?

In fact, about half of that increase in the MCPS budget has come from increased state funding, not from the county government.  The share of the county government’s local revenues going to our schools has actually been decreasing over the past decade (see Table 2 below).

“There is no doubt that the County has been through challenging fiscal times” said MCEA President Doug Prouty, “ but it belies the facts to say that the problem is funding for education”. The national recession has resulted in serious decreases in state and local revenues at the same time that demand for services has been increasing.

The school system has seen an enrollment increase of more than 10,000 students. Almost all of that growth has been among low-income and non-English speaking students who often need more resources to be successful. MCPS has also seen a dramatic increase in the need for special education services to meet the needs of its 17,000+ special education students.

Thankfully, state aid to MCPS has increased. But the reality is that local per-pupil spending – meaning funding approved by the Montgomery County Council – has decreased as a share of the county’s local taxes and revenues. State aid – intended to meet the needs of our growing population of low-income and non-English speaking students – has instead been used to fill the gap created by the decrease in local per-pupil spending.

The County’s local per-pupil spending is now lower than it was before the recession hit – more than six years ago. (See Chart 1 below)

“Our schools are the solution to our fiscal problems, not the cause” said Prouty. “Good schools raise property values and attract high paying jobs”.

Let’s stop blaming the County’s budget problems on the school system. And let’s start talking about how we meet the needs of all our students for the 21st century and close the remaining achievement gaps.

FACT 1: The MCPS Budget has not been increasing any faster than the County Government budget

Table 1: Rate of Growth in County Budgets

from the County Council’s own Report (page 19), October 16, 2012

FACT 2: For the past 10 years, the Montgomery County Government has been allocating a smaller and smaller share of local revenues to our schools

Table 2: Montgomery County’s Local School Funding as a Percent of Local Revenues

FACT 3: The County's local per-pupil spending is now lower than it was six years ago

Chart 1: Montgomery County’s  Local Per-Pupil Spending: 2006 – 2013

Nothing to BOAST about

The following letter was submitted to Maryland Juice by our own Jane Stern, though it hasn't been published yet.  There is a possibility that Gov. O'Malley will be recommending funding for the BOAST voucher program. This program would divert millions of dollars from Maryland's public schools by providing public funds to students wishing to attend private schools. 

The Saturday, October 20 Juice Report #3 (see below) discussed the 2010 firing of April Flores, a Baltimore Catholic School teacher for being “unchaste” and the contrast to the controversy surrounding Angela McCaskill, Gallaudet’s Diversity and Inclusion provost. 

Ever since the Supreme Court ruling in the Hosanna-Tabor case less than a year ago, the Catholic Church, like all other religious institutions has the right to discriminate for any reason whatsoever against employees who fall under the so-called ministerial exception.  In fact, such institutions may legally discriminate against both students and staff on the basis of academic ability, sex, religion, sexual orientation, and disability.  In addition, they may discriminate against staff on the basis of race and personal medical decisions. In light of this case, it is worrisome to find Governor O’Malley supporting an initiative, known as the BOAST Bill.  This legislation would divert millions of dollars in public funds to private religious schools which are now free to discriminate. One wonders why the governor would do this, particularly in light of his past support for Maryland’s anti-discrimination law and the more recent fight for Question 6 and marriage equality. 

Governor O’Malley recently joined the Maryland State Education Association for a Town Hall style meeting with educators which was covered by the Daily Times. Unfortunately, the Times did not report on his response to a request to him to clear up any ambiguity on his position on vouchers and promise no longer to offer his support for the perennially submitted vouchers bill known as BOAST or other voucher-like proposals in the budgeting or legislative process during the remainder of his term.

Some background: BOAST is a tuition tax credit voucher bill that would divert millions of dollars to private schools, most of which would be Catholic schools.   It has been introduced and promoted by the Catholic Conference for the past 10 years and despite the fact that the governor and Senate President Mike Miller support the BOAST bill it has perennially failed, mostly because of strong opposition from Del. Shelia Hixson and Speaker of the House Mike Busch.  (Last year, the version of BOAST put forth in the House managed to garner only one sponsor.) 

In 2006 and 2010, when he was running for governor, Gov. O’Malley stated that he was opposed to the BOAST tax credits and other voucher schemes. That is one reason why many public school supporters voted for him twice. Yet in the last few years, proponents have used a letter from him supporting BOAST.  It has recently been rumored that Gov. O’Malley would include the BOAST tax credit voucher program in his budget in order to get around the legislative process and opposition in the House of Delegates.  If this program is included in his budget it would not receive a proper hearing, and all the details of the program would likely be decided by legislators and staff without public input.  Maryland’s governor has the strongest budget power in the country; the legislature can only cut the budget. As a result of the give and take dynamics between the House and Senate budget committees, it is unlikely the program would be cut. 

In response to the question posed at the town hall, Gov. O’Malley stated that he now supports the BOAST voucher program.  In an attempt to align himself with another Democrat, Gov. O'Malley incorrectly referenced Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell from Pennsylvania as a Democrat who passed a similar program in Pennsylvania. You can watch Gov. O’Malley’s response to the question at 28:30 of the video at the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymrTANwgUfE&feature=plcp. 

Gov. O’Malley is incorrect that Rendell initiated the state voucher program in Pennsylvania. Rendell took office in 2003 and Pennsylvania’s BOAST tuition tax credit program was signed in 2001 by Governor Tom Ridge, a Republican. The BOAST bill is extreme model legislation drafted by ALEC, a well-known right wing organization. If Maryland were to create a program, even one as small as $5 million per year, it would mean public funding going to the Catholic schools and other religious schools, many of which worked so hard to defeat Question 6.  Nine of the eleven states with tuition tax credit BOAST-like programs were led by Republican governors and Republican majority legislatures when their respective bills passed. A tenth had a Republican-controlled House and a divided Senate. And in New Hampshire, Democratic Governor John Lynch vetoed the bill only to have his veto overturned by a Republican controlled legislature.  The BOAST bill is completely out of line with Democratic principles.

The private schools that would benefit from this public money have no legal mandate to comply with anti-discrimination laws in place for public schools.  In fact, they may legally discriminate against both students and staff on the basis of academic ability, sex, religion, sexual orientation, and disability.  Public funding from BOAST tax credit vouchers would go to students who attend private schools that are not required to uphold the First Amendment, basic due process rights, and other constitutional and statutory rights and protections of students in public schools. The type of unjust treatment 25-year veteran Catholic school teacher April Flores is now so familiar with would be sanctioned with public funding if Gov. O’Malley is able to go around the House of Delegates and include the program in his budget.

  

BOAST tuition tax credit vouchers are a stark contrast to the commitment to fairness and equality that Maryland voters supported through the passage of Question 6. Gov. O’Malley should be distancing himself from the support he is now showing for such a voucher scheme. The BOAST bill is completely out of line with Democratic principles and is not suitable for Maryland or, indeed, any other state.

The Governor’s motto, that we should move forward, not back, is belied by his wish to return to the customs of the old world by which governments supported their favorite religions – customs from which the founding fathers clearly meant to depart.

JUICE #3: FLASHBACK TO 2010 // VETERAN TEACHER FIRED FROM BALTIMORE CATHOLIC SCHOOL FOR BEING "UNCHASTE" - A Maryland Juice reader has forwarded us an interesting contrast to the current controversy surrounding the suspension of Gallaudet's "diversity and inclusion provost." As you may have heard, the D.C.-based University is weighing the fate of their employee Angela McCaskill, after she signed a petition calling for the marriage rights of same-sex couples to be put to a popular vote. Arguably, McCaskill violated the school's established "credo" of discouraging "behaviors and attitudes that disrespect the diversity of individuals and groups for any reason including ... sexual orientation."

Many have been quick to defend McCaskill, arguing that her private views and behavior should be protected. But when it comes to individual freedom and free association rights, it appears that many on the right are content to err on the side of protecting those who seek to advance discrimination over those who are the victims of said discrimination. As one example, a reader has sent us a story about a veteran teacher at a Baltimore Catholic school who was terminated in 2010 for being "unchaste." When's the last time you heard of a straight person being fired for the same reason? In any case, below see a quick explanation from our reader, followed by a column written by the fired teacher:

ANONYMOUS READER: See the attached copy of the New Ways Ministry newsletter published in Spring 2010. Below you will find a first person story penned by April Flores, describing how she was terminated from her job as a teacher at the Sacred Heart of Mary School after administrators from the Archdiocese of Baltimore discovered that she had wed her female partner in Washington DC in July 2009. She describes a humiliating process of going through a "hearing" to try to keep her job, and includes some of the language that was used in the correspondence that was used to terminate her: “behavior that seriously offends the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Baltimore [and I] failed to uphold the moral values of chastity.”

Seriously, they terminated a 25-year veteran teacher, who apparently was valued by the community she served, because the Archdiocese was "offended", and because she was not chaste. It is not clear how the Archdiocese knew Ms. Flores was unchaste (hard to imagine how they gathered this data), and interesting that we seldom (never ?) hear of heterosexual folks being terminated due to lack of chastity.

Below, read a column by April Flores, a teacher who was fired from Baltimore's Sacred Heart of Mary School in 2010 (via BaltimoreOutLoud.com & New Ways Ministry):

APRIL FLORES: I’m Catholic and I used to proudly celebrate Catholic Schools Week; however, due to a collision of my religion and my personal life, I did not participate in this year’s festivities. I devoted over twenty-five years of my life to Catholic education and was only married to my wife, Jennifer Simmons, for one month before the Archdiocese of Baltimore (AOB) involuntarily terminated my contract.

This past July I was told by Michelly Merrick, director of human resources for the AOB, that the Archdiocese learned of my civil ceremony and that they thought it best for everyone that I resign from Sacred Heart of Mary School. I disagree, which is why I refused to resign. In a second meeting with the AOB, they stated that there are similar cases to mine, but those are not being investigated because names were not given. Other employees are not adhering to Catholic moral standards, yet I am the only person punished. How is that just?

Anyone that truly knows me can attest to the fact that I am a selfless, dedicated, and effective teacher who is loved and respected by students, parents, and colleagues. This is evident by the overwhelming support I received from my Catholic community when they learned of my termination. I received only support until I faced a panel of five archdiocesan administrators at an optional hearing, at which my students and parents protested my dismissal.

According to Dr. Ronald Valenti, the superintendent of the AOB, the panel unanimously decided to uphold the decision of the Archdiocese to terminate my contract. In retrospect, I should have questioned the panel and asked them if they believed that Jesus would prohibit a lesbian from teaching his word or if Jesus would shun me the way the Archdiocese has.

I was terminated because I am guilty of “behavior that seriously offends the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Baltimore [and I] failed to uphold the moral values of chastity.” I understand these claims, but I believe that my termination remains civilly discriminatory, morally wrong, and an enormous disservice to my students.

Catholicism preaches to love everyone despite existing differences; however, I am being castigated for being different. If God loves unconditionally, why can’t we? My termination clearly implies that Catholicism holds that it is sinful to be a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender individual. How can the Archdiocese terminate me, but justify accepting tuition money from parents of lgbt students?

Some Catholics are outraged and are disgusted with the Church’s stance regarding homosexuality. How long will the Church ignore these congregants? People are seeking change, the Church needs to do so as well. What type of message should be sent? One that is loving, forgiving, and accepting of all people or one where it is socially and religiously acceptable for discrimination to exist?

Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” And Gandhi said, “Be the change you wish to see in the world.” There is no Maryland state or federal law that protects lgbt individuals from being discriminated against by religious institutions. I believe that this is an injustice and I am doing my part to be the change I wish to see in the world. I want to see religious institutions waive their rights of discriminating against lgbt individuals; however, this requires people to positively appeal for change.

I encourage everyone, especially Catholics, who are enraged, disappointed, or bothered by this story to appeal for change for our lgbt community. Only then, will I reconsider celebrating Catholic Schools Week.

Maryland Juice again notes that polls consistently show Catholics in America are the most supportive group on marriage equality. But the reality is, that at some point, America will have to have a serious conversation about employment discrimination against LGBT individuals, and to what extent we really do believe that these victims are in a different class of protection than racial minorities, women and other protected groups. The free association and religious freedom arguments are actually more interesting than they seem at first. Is discrimination against LGBT individuals as much a core part of the Catholic Church's mission as hatred of African-Americans is for the Ku Klux Klan? For how long does a group have to argue that they haven't liked LGBT people for it to be considered a core part of their religion or mission. How clearly does it have to be established in their text?

In the meantime, only those who choose to live in the bizarro bubble of rightwing religious extremism seem to have the unbelievable view that it is they who need the greater protection from discrimination. In short, they value not being offended by things as more important than the basic rights of others. It seems to me that they (or rather their leaders) are obsessed with how other people live and maybe they need to stop thinking about it. Remember, there is no right to not be offended in America (unlike in other nations). Has anyone thought about these issues, or are we just pandering to the politics of religion right now? I'm not arguing that we need to trample on religious rights in America, but honestly, the policy justifications for some of these religious arguments are just completely whack.

Quality controls lacking for D.C. schools accepting federal vouchers

The following article was recently published in the Washington Post.
by Lyndsey Layton and Emma Brown

"Congress created the nation’s only federally funded school voucher program in the District to give the city’s poorest children a chance at a better education than their neighborhood schools offer.

But a Washington Post review found that hundreds of students use their voucher dollars to attend schools that are unaccredited or are in unconventional settings, such as a family-run K-12 school operating out of a storefront, a Nation of Islam school based in a converted Deanwood residence, and a school built around the philosophy of a Bulgarian psychotherapist.

Some of these schools are heavily dependent on tax dollars, with more than 90 percent of their students paying with federal vouchers.

Yet the government has no say over curriculum, quality or management. And parents trying to select a school have little independent information, relying mostly on marketing from the schools.

The director of the nonprofit organization that manages the D.C. vouchers on behalf of the federal government calls quality control “a blind spot.....”

to read the full article, click here.

Montgomery County schools superintendent launches podcast with teachers’ union vice president

Article posted yesterday on WashingtonPost.com
By Lynh Bui

Montgomery County Public Schools Superintendent Joshua P. Starr has hit the digital airwaves.

Starr has launched a podcast called “What’s the BIG Idea?” a show he hosts with Chris Lloyd, vice president of the Montgomery County Education Association and an eighth-grade teacher.

“Public education is really, really complex,” Starr says in the inaugural podcast. “There are no easy answers, and I feel like part of my job is to try to help people understand that complexity in a multitude of ways.”

The show will bring in people in from around the region “who have big ideas about things going on in education,” Starr said.

On first listen, it sounds like the podcast aims to give people in the education community a chance to think deeply about problems, innovations, systems and policy tied to teaching kids in America.

“We tend to kind of go for the latest fad, the latest reform, the latest kind of quick fix...” Lloyd said. “But we don’t really think about what’s the purpose of education.”

Lloyd is part of the Montgomery County Education Association, the union that represents more than 12,000 teachers, counselors and other educators in the school system.

In the first podcast, Starr and Lloyd talk to Sam Chaltain, a writer and education activist who lives in Washington, D.C. Chaltain was also national director of education advocacy organization the Forum for Education & Democracy.

Starr and Lloyd don’t waste any time in the first episode. Their first question to Chaltain:

“What’s the problem we’re trying to solve in American public education?”

To send questions for future podcasts, find them on Twitter @wtbipodcast or e-mail podcast@mcpsmd.org

“What’s the BIG Idea?” is available through iTunes or here.

Facts Matter

The Washington Post editorial board is entitled to its own opinions but not its own facts.  Their recent  editorial "A lesson in runaway spending" (10-18-12)  ignores the facts to advance the editors’ own agenda.

Buried in the very County Council Report (Table 4-4) that the editorial cites is the straightforward fact that the average annual change in MCPS’ budget over the past decade has been 4.9% and the average annual change in the County Government budget has been --- 4.9%. How can any objective reader blame “runaway spending” in MCPS for the County’s budget woes?

In fact, most of the increase in the school budget has been funded by the state, not by Montgomery County.  The very same report (Table 3-1) reveals that local per-pupil spending by the Montgomery County Council has been cut back to a level lower than it was six years ago – in 2007.

The real question is how long does the Post editorial Board – and most members of the Montgomery County Council – want to freeze local per-pupil spending below 2007 levels? Seven years? Ten years? Fifteen years?

Last Spring, the Council approved a budget increase for non-MCPS spending of 4.7%- more than twice the increase given to MCPS of 2.2%. Had these increases been equal, MCPS could have begun to restore positions cut in previous years. The statement in the editorial that staffing levels were cut for the current school year in order to fund raises is inaccurate- overall hiring is up for the current school year in order to teach the 2,500 new students enrolled for this year.

The Post also repeats the falsehood from the Council report that any increase above the minimum level would be “irreversible”. The legislation passed last year provides for a clearer and faster path to a waiver of the minimum spending requirement, including new criteria providing that a county’s history of exceeding the minimum required spending will now be a factor that must be considered in granting a waiver request.  There is also a provision that if the Executive, Council, and Board of Education agree such a waiver is necessary, as was true in 2010 when the state BOE granted Montgomery County’s request, it is automatic.

Our schools face increasing challenges. The new Common Core standards will raise expectations for all students.  The number of low-income and non-English speaking students, who often need more resources to be successful, is increasing rapidly. MCPS has the highest African-American graduation rate of any major school system in the country, but we have a lot more work to do. Does anyone think we can close the achievement gap if the County continues to freeze local per-pupil spending below 2007 levels?

No one wants to see county services cut. Our children need the health and human services and public safety protections that the county government funds. But this groundless blaming of the school system for the County Government’s budget woes is misguided. It’s about time we worked together to meet the needs of our community and stop this blame game.

Doug Prouty, President, Montgomery County Education Association

Vote Yes on the DREAM Act

Sara Nathan is a high school English teacher and MCEA member. She recently wrote this compelling column on why we should support Question 4 - the Maryland DREAM Act. Thank you Sara for allowing MCEA to reprint it.

Clearing plates and filling water glasses in a restaurant is how a sixteen -year-old Salvadoran immigrant who lives in Rockville earns money to help his parents pay their rent. This fall, in addition to his restaurant work, he joined a growing number of undocumented immigrants who are attending Montgomery County Public Schools for the first time.

Increased school enrollment of undocumented teenagers who have been living in Maryland and working for restaurants, cleaning services, landscaping companies and home-based day care centers is one of the benefits of Obama’s executive order giving legal status and work permits to immigrants who came here when they were younger than 16 and have either graduated or are attending high school.

Now Maryland voters have the chance to give those students a greater motivation to graduate from high school and become well-educated contributing members of our society rather than part of a permanent non-English speaking underclass living and working in the shadows. Maryland voters can encourage these students to develop skills to qualify for higher-paying jobs which will increase the state tax base and generate more revenue for our economy.

Marylanders will be able to vote yes on Nov. 6 on ballot Question 4 which would give undocumented immigrants, who graduate from Maryland high schools and whose parents have paid taxes for at least three years, the right to pay in-state tuition to attend state universities. The greatest benefit of that initiative may well be that it gives high school students a greater incentive to earn their diplomas, whether or not they are financially able to go on to college.

In previous years, undocumented teenage immigrants have enrolled in Montgomery County schools, primarily with the goal of learning English and they initially progress quickly. In the 1982 case Plyler v. Doe, The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of all students living in the United States to a free public school education, but some saw a greater value in working than studying.

The graduation rate for students enrolled in English as a Second Language classes is the lowest of any subgroup in Montgomery County – only 70.7% in 2010 compared to an overall graduation rate of 90%, according to the Montgomery County Public Schools Annual Report on Our Call to Action. Latino students, which may include undocumented immigrants who do not need specialized English classes, have the lowest graduation rate of any ethnic group –just 79.3%.

Immigrant students who dropped out often had a detrimental impact on their peers. Rather than admitting even to classmates that they chose not to pursue their diplomas because of their immigration status, they often claimed that school did not matter and they chose to work and earn money immediately.

But this fall, anecdotal conversations with new immigrant students have shown a return to education. Many report that they had already been living and working in Maryland, but were not enrolled in school or previously dropped out and chose to return to school in September.

Opponents may argue that these students are not legally in the U.S. and their education imposes an undue burden on tax papers. But these students are already here working and studying. Last year, one Salvadoran immigrant student reported that he held three jobs while attending school: cleaning office buildings Monday through Friday, washing trucks at a truck stop off Interstate 70 on Saturday, and cleaning garbage trucks on Sunday.

Encouraging these teenage workers to stay in school means Maryland businesses will have a better educated work force, rather than a permanent lower class of non-English speaking workers laboring for cash.

 The student working at the truck stop will be able to read instructions for handling dangerous chemicals and prevent accidents.

 The student who works at her mother’s in-home day care center will be able to read nutritional labels and make the informed decision to serve the children Cheerios, rather than Cheetos for snack.

 The student working at a restaurant will be able to follow proper food handling instructions and keep the ingredients clean and safe.

Supporting Maryland ballot Question 4 will do more than provide an education for potential low wage workers. It will motivate the best students, who have persevered despite an uncertain future, to graduate from high school, attend community colleges and then transfer to four-year universities. Even paying the in-state rates, the cost of nearly $5,000 for tuition and fees for a year at Montgomery College and as much as $23,000 for tuition, room, board and books at the University of Maryland, may present an insurmountable obstacle for undocumented immigrants, who would not qualify for financial aid.

But others will find the way to pay their tuition and invest in themselves. Those students will become the future nurses, teachers, electrical engineers, pharmacists and computer scientists of our state.

School superintendent to Thomas Friedman: Why you are wrong about Race to the Top

Excerpt from a great story on Valerie Strauss’ Washington Post blog yesterday:

But I do not believe test scores must be tied to evaluations to reach this goal. The Peer Assistance and Review program operating in Montgomery County (Maryland) Public Schools is a perfect example of an innovative initiative that provides support for struggling teachers and a road out of the profession for those that cannot improve. In the 11 years of the program, hundreds of poorly performing teachers have left Montgomery County schools. Yet Montgomery County Superintendent Jerry Weast told the New York Times in June 2011 that his district will likely never receive Race to the Top funds because test scores are not part of the evaluation equation. “We don’t believe the tests are reliable,” Weast said. “You don’t want to turn your system into a test factory.”

New Poll: Too Little Spending on Schools, Not Enough Taxes from High Earners

This just in from MarylandReporter.com, "the news site for government and politics in the Free State":

November 01, 2012 at 12:28 am
By Sam Smith

Almost two-thirds of Maryland residents (65%) feel Maryland spends “too little” on public schools despite a rising trend in state and local government education spending, a new Goucher College poll found.

The poll also found that 60% of Maryland residents feel that high-income earners don’t pay enough taxes, despite a state income tax increase in May that forces over 300,000 Marylanders earning six figures to pay a higher tax rate.

Nearly two-thirds of residents feel large businesses and corporations don’t pay enough in taxes, as well. Meanwhile, 41% said that small businesses pay “too much” in taxes and another 41% feel small businesses pay a “fair share.”

The telephone survey was conducted by political science students at Goucher College in Towson. Unlike most election year polls, the Goucher poll surveyed all Marylanders, not just likely or registered voters.

The survey sampled 667 respondents representative of all Maryland regions, races and genders, recording a 3.79% pus or minus margin of error. One third of the interviews were done by cell phone. The questions did not define “higher income people” or “large businesses and corporations”.

Education spending, taxes on the rise

Although two-thirds of the population feels that the state doesn’t spend enough in education, state and local governments in Maryland are estimated to spend $19.7 billion on education in fiscal year 2013, with the state spending $5.3 billion, according to USGovernmentSpending.com.

Annual education spending in Maryland has increased over $7 billion since 2002 when the combined education spending reached $12.5 billion, with the state accounting for $3.4 billion.

Despite only 23% of the residents thinking that high income earners pay a fair share of taxes, Maryland’s new tax rates have single-filers earning over $100,000 and couples earning over $150,000 paying 5% plus a local piggyback tax of 1.2% to 3.2%. People earning over $250,000 are now paying a 5.75% rate plus the local income tax. The new tax system is estimated to increase revenue by over $260 million.

The Tax Foundation’s 2013 State Business Tax Climate Index lists Maryland as the 10th worst tax climate in the country. Maryland’s tax climate has improved modestly since 2011 when it ranked as the eighth worst tax environment. However, Maryland ranked as the sixth worst individual income tax climate in the nation.

Although Maryland ranked as the 15th best corporate tax climate, the state has lost businesses to neighboring Virginia, which has the sixth best corporate tax ranking.

Question 7 ads influence residents view on education

With a record-setting $65 million spent so far on advertising in the fight for Maryland’s gambling expansion ballot initiative, much attention is focused on Maryland’s Education Trust Fund this election as it will be a beneficiary of expanded gambling. Mileah Kromer, director of Goucher College’s Sarah T. Hughes Field Politics Center, said due to the Question 7 advertising bombardment, people are led to believe that education is underfunded by the state.

“If you continually say that, people will look towards the education system and say ‘obviously, we need to fund it. It must be underfunded if the reason we want to pass this gambling initiative is to better fund education,’” Kromer said.

Proponents and opponents of Question 7 have advertised in every form and fashion this fall: television, radio, telephone, mailings, billboards and signs. A second Goucher poll on perception of Maryland ballot questions shows that 87% of Maryland residents have seen the advertising on TV.

Kromer added that the results could have been affected by respondents evaluating their local school systems instead of state funding.

“Education is one of those things that people are so close to that any time you look at any sort of efficiency in your own school system the first thing that individuals think is why is it so poorly funded?” Kromer said.

Campaign rhetoric influences views on individual and business taxes

Kromer said that even though Maryland has increased taxes on the wealthy and has a less-than desirable tax climate, respondents saying that high income earners and businesses aren’t paying enough taxes could be simply repeating the campaign messages of Obama and Romney as they try to appeal to the middle class.

“It’s really people repeating the rhetoric they do hear in the campaigns.” Kromer said. “There is this focus on how we need to help out middle income people. Even among Romney and Obama, both talk about how they are not going to cut anymore taxes for the upper class.”

Social Justice Series: The DREAM Act.

You are invited to a panel discussion and question/answer session designed to educate MCEA members and their guests about the Maryland DREAM Act.

As educators, the public often turns to us for our advice and opinions. Join us for an opportunity to inform ourselves, learn from others, and voice your questions, comments, and concerns about this upcoming ballot measure.

The evening will be the inaugural event in an ongoing social justice series. It is co-sponsored by the Human and Civil Rights Committee, the Instruction and Professional Development Committee, and the Minority Affairs Committee.

Your RSVP is not required, but would assist in planning for the event. If you are able to RSVP, please email khall@mceanea.org.

We hope you'll join us on the 23rd!

State Senator Responds to County Council Attacks on School Funding Law

In response to recent comments by County Council members attacking the Maintenance of Effort school funding law that was fixed last spring by the state legislature, Montgomery County State Senator Nancy King (District 39) has sent a pointed reply to Council President Roger Berliner. To read her full letter, click here. 

The Results of Corporate School Reform in DC

Five years ago, Washington DC abolished its elected school board and the Mayor appointed Michelle Rhee as the new Chancellor. Although she had never run a school district, or even been a school principal, Rhee was empowered to up-end the system in the name of school reform. Over the next three years Rhee fired hundreds of teachers and principals, closed numerous schools and so alienated the community that many credit her for the Mayor being voted out of office after just one term. Rhee was - and still is - a darling of the neo-reformers: those who champion privatizing public education, those who ignore the impact of poverty on student achievement, and those who blame teachers and their unions for all the world's ills. Rhee successor - and mentee - Kaya Henderson, has proudly declared that she would be carrying on Rhee's agenda.

So here we are five years later, and Washington Post education writer Valerie Strauss has just posted a shocking letter about the school district's abyssmal failure to provide library books to newly renovated high schools. The excerpt below documents the facts - including the massive diversion of funding intended for library books to other purposes.

The neo-reformers always talk about accountability. Where is the accountability for this travesty?

"The city has every right to take pride in the $62 million modernization of Anacostia High School. It represents an important commitment to one of our most disadvantage communities. When your office issued the press release about the ribbon-cutting, it noted the school received a new library/media center. Unfortunately what the school received was not a library but merely a room. The school opened without any library books. The old collection — both literally and figuratively — was lost during the modernization.

What’s even worse is that this is not an isolated incident. Last year when the new H.D. Woodson High School opened, most of its books were lost during the renovation, including a 3,000 volume collection donated by a DCPS central office staff member. It now has a 450-volume collection. For a school its size, that figure should be 10,000. And Eastern High School had part of its collection lost during construction.

It is not simply the repeated loss of valuable school assets that is so troubling, it also the fact that the chancellor has paid so little attention to school libraries that they could be allowed to open in this state. A quarter of a billion dollars and the chance for significant gains in student achievement have been put at risk with the absence of these core academic materials.

The results of a Freedom of Information Act request show that in FY11 and FY12, the money appropriated to DCPS for library and media services was overwhelmingly used for other things. It paid for other things like building repairs, maintenance to HVAC systems. More than $400,000 was used for testing. DCPS used $80,000 of these funds to pay for a San Francisco-based consultant to develop a strategic plan for its Office of Family and Community Engagement."

Why value added measures and merit pay aren't fair

Daniel Willingham, a cognitive scientist from UVA, put together this video about follies of value added measures and merit pay. 

Six reasons why ‘value-added’ and merit pay aren’t fair — in three minutes

MCEA member Lisa Farhi had this article posted in Valerie Strauss' Answer Sheet blog on the Washington Post website yesterday.

Great job Lisa!

Teacher: What school reformers don’t know

By Valerie Strauss

Policy makers and pundits don’t stop giving their opinions but we don’t hear enough from teachers in the debate about school reform. Many teachers ear their jobs may be jeopardized if they express their opinions; others say they have no time sit down and write a thoughtful piece.
One who accepted my invitation to write about the most pressing issues is Lisa Farhi of Montgomery County Public Schools in Maryland, who has worked as consulting teacher within the school district’s professional growth system, a kindergarten classroom teacher and now a staff development teacher.

By Lisa Farhi

“We’re citizens and teachers—and neither is easy. Good luck.”

— Deborah Meier, 2002, inscription in my copy of “In Schools We Trust”


Back in 2002, I approached the microphone at the Washington D.C. bookstore Politics and Prose and told the author of “In Schools We Trust” that as a teacher degreed in human development, I was feeling
muzzled by the burgeoning high-stakes standardized testing movement. I said that in 10 years we would be slapping ourselves, saying, “OMG, we forgot about poverty” in our driven pursuit for so-called “accountability” of teachers and schools. We were choosing to ignore the conditions in which children live and how they affect their achievement in school.

Deborah Meier, still one of my lifelong heroes in education, told me to fight poverty as a citizen, not as a teacher.

That turned out to be good advice, considering that my schools superintendent at the time was a hard-liner who insisted that great teaching could overcome poverty, and because in the ensuing 10 years, proponents of No Child Left Behind hurled accusations of low expectations bordering on racial bias toward any teacher who raised concerns about economic struggles in the lives of children. I was heartened to read Helen Ladd’s and Edward B. Fiske’s comprehensive New York Times op-ed piece “Class Matters. Why Won’t We Admit It?”, which chastises us as a society for ignoring the effects of poverty on student achievement.
Daniel Pink, author of “Drive,” recently expressed disbelief that those purporting to reform education through pay-for-performance think that a student’s test score represents solely the influence of the teacher, not any other variables in the student’s life. He is astounded by the lack of logic in this argument.
Since Montgomery County’s new superintendent, Joshua Starr, invited Pink to a public book club discussion of “Drive,” I feel that the muzzle has been loosened by a couple of notches.

I am now almost brave enough to fight poverty as a citizen AND as a teacher. Through these years of standardized testing domination and de-facto gag orders on my concerns about the effects of poverty on student achievement, I have served as a consulting teacher within the Montgomery County Public Schools professional growth system, a kindergarten classroom teacher and now a staff development teacher.
Linda Darling-Hammond’s March 20th Huffington Post piece about a recent Met Life survey, which found the lowest level of teacher satisfaction in 20 years, was entitled, “Maybe it’s Time to Ask the Teachers?” Well, since someone asked. . .
As a mentor, trainer of teachers and classroom teacher, my most profound conflict has been to convince detractors, pockets of the teacher-bashing media and random cocktail party guests that it’s possible for me to hold the highest of expectations for every student who crosses the schoolhouse door, while also caring mightily about whether or not they’re fed, clothed, housed and healthy.

In my own training and in the training I deliver, equity is paramount; I actively coach teachers in how to engage every student, every moment for optimum teaching and learning. In those same sessions, poverty has been taboo for fear that if teachers discuss it, we will AUTOMATICALLY lower our expectations for student achievement. I find this mutual exclusivity insulting to our intelligence and an assault on our freedom of speech. Why are we not trusted as professionals to be capable of holding high expectations for student achievement while also caring about whether or not families need support?

It’s hard to be an informed citizen and sustain teacher morale these days. Value-added, a method of using student standardized test scores to ealuate teachers, is the new, unwieldy way reformers are rooting out perceived poor teachers.

Some of my colleagues in New York didn’t make the value-added cut by a percentage point, despite their glowing observation reports by administrators. Good luck replacing all of the dedicated New York teachers willing to work in settings where the neediest students toil. Transiency, varied content areas, out-of -control class size and unaccountable upper management affect value-added scores more than my dinner party mates will ever acknowledge.

But who is paying attention to whether or not local, state and federal agencies are dealing withour 22% child poverty rate? We all know that countries such as Finland out-test us on international exams. Finland has a child poverty rate of about 5 percent.

If I were not in favor of evaluating teachers, I never would have participated as a consulting teacher in the peer assistance and review program in Montgomery County Public Schools. Like employees everywhere, we teachers need to be evaluated. I support MCPS’ professional growth system because it has built-in checks and balances that, when challenged, can be brought to hearing through due process. The program provides one year of intense support for improvement prior to any dismissal decisions.

To use Pink’s terminology, teaching is a heuristic, complex task. Teaching cannot be codified enough to be rewarded like widget making. I’m glad to work for a school system that understands the difference.
Yet since I read and advocate a lot, it hasn’t been easy being the recipient of widespread condescension. It seems that the most respected thinkers in education reform are those with the least experience in my field, yet with the most money. Bill Gates, Eli Broad, the Business Roundtable and the Governors’ Association are heard way above the din of harried teachers, trying to lesson-plan their way to continued employment, while spending their daytime hours reaching students with a set of variables so differentiated that these teachers are making up to 1,500 decisions per day.

What we do know is that the schools demonstrating the most success in closing the achievement gap are addressing families’ struggles outside the schoolhouse. I will gladly open my mind to programs that wrap services like health care, psychological support, nutrition programs, employment counseling, adult literacy support and parent advocacy around the school. I will fight as a teacher and as a citizen to get these services paid for within our public school system via local, state and federal funding.

But why privatize and then tout what is known to work, while simultaneously abdicating a societal responsibility for putting such services in place in all public schools? From the perspective of a public school employee, it feels like a bait and switch: here’s what works but you can’t have it; look over here, doesn’t it look nice? Too bad, it’s not for everyone.

Finally, if Education Secretary Arne Duncan and President Obama wish to keep the good (closely examining subgroup achievement) and throw out the bad (narrowing of the curriculum, lack of creativity) of No Child Left Behind, then why have they created Race to the Top, which relies heavily on test scores to evaluate teachers? The curriculum will be no broader, no more creative and no more focused on subgroup achievement, if teachers’ personal livelihoods hinge on individual student scores. It’s contradictory, demeaning and it’s also a deterrent to equity. Will the finest among us want to teach struggling students under that type of algorithmic pressure? Instead, we should be using student data to make better daily instructional decisions, not as cut scores for continued employment.

I encourage any education reformer to spend a month in our shoes. They’ll soon see that teaching is not only rocket science, but also an art. It is complex and human. It should be measured humanely and supported by programs that elevate students out of poverty.