Archive for June, 2009

United Teachers of Los Angeles Rally Around Teachers Being Laid-Off

June 5th, 2009

Each year around this time, Californians begin hearing a familiar story coming from Sacramento. Revolving around the state’s budget, it is a story of stalemate. California’s State Legislature consistently fails to pass a working budget by the established deadline. It is an ideological deadlock: the political Right would like to minimize taxes and government spending; the political Left would like to strengthen public infrastructure. The unique constraints of California’s Constitution (California is one of only three states that require a two-thirds vote of the state legislature to pass a budget and raise taxes), ensure that any approved budget will address in significant ways the ideological concerns of both sides.

Even before the current recession the nation is facing, California was facing a budget deficit. Since the state passed Proposition 13 in the late 1970s, the funding required for public infrastructure and the revenue collected by the state have been out of balance. In 2009, this shortfall is multiple billions of dollars. The budget being currently submitted for approval proposes to make up this shortfall by cutting approximately $10 billion in education funding.

At the state level, the ongoing budget dilemma is a crisis of ideology. At the local level, it is a crisis of practicality. California’s public schools are funded at well below the national average. California ranks 46th in the nation in per pupil spending. For many years, education spending has been one of the first areas to be cut from a budget. To balance the 2004-5 budget, governor Arnold Schwarzenegger borrowed $2 billion from education funding that has yet to have been repaid in its entirety.

As news of this new budget and its cuts to education became public, the United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA) made clear that they would not take these cuts lying down. On Thursday, January 29th, 2009, thousands of teachers rallied in protest of the cuts to education in the budget being put forward by Schwarzenegger and the state legislature. Teachers assembled at the Los Angeles Unified School District’s (LAUSD) district office in downtown Los Angeles and marched through the streets to Pershing Square.

Facing this perpetually deficient funding, the LAUSD adds fuel to the fire in the way that it manages the funds it receives. District employees receive perks such as car and phone allowances. Consultants are regularly used in lieu of district employees and are generally paid considerably more. According to LAUSD’s estimates, nearly 10% of State Tax Dollars do not make it to the individual school sites, but these numbers are difficult to corroborate and may be much higher. Recently, this sort of thing has been a common story when it occurs at Goldman Sachs or General Motors, but the profligacy of LAUSD management has remained largely anonymous in the traditional media. It has been some time since the District’s accounts were audited. Former Superintendent David Brewer was the highest paid School District Superintendent in the nation at $300,000 per year. When he was asked to resign early this year, he was given a $500,000 severance package.

UTLA consistently calls upon LAUSD to trim waste in the way funds are spent in the management of the district. UTLA voiced outrage at Brewer’s golden parachute. UTLA’s outrage was magnified when, facing a $10 billion cut in education funding statewide, LAUSD presented a solution to UTLA that called for the elimination of more than 8,000 jobs, the majority of these jobs being classroom teachers. As we follow the path of tax dollars from policy to practicality, the large cuts in education spending in next year’s budget resulted in approximately 5,500 Reduction In Force (RIF) notices being sent to LAUSD teachers. “The similarities to the corporate bail-outs are numerous,” says Cathy Garcia, a UTLA chapter chair at Crenshaw High School and member of the Progressive Educators for ACtion (PEAC) coalition within UTLA, “Why is CNN not talking about this? Why is no one paying attention?”

Having a left-leaning executive in the White House has changed the landscape slightly. Barack Obama’s stimulus package has sent a considerable amount of federal dollars to LAUSD. Where before, the UTLA line was “cut district waste, cut district waste, cut district waste”, UTLA is now calling on LAUSD to trim the waste in their operations and to specifically use the stimulus funds to prevent any RIF notices from being sent out. Currently, about 35% of the stimulus funds are being used to save teaching positions, mostly in math and science classes. UTLA believes that if 50% of the funds are used, every teaching position currently being downsized could be saved. LAUSD believes that this year’s budget is a harbinger of things to come and would like to save the majority of the funds to make up shortfalls in next year’s budget.

All of this discussion is still very macro-oriented. The real questions are, What do these RIFs look like at schools? What do they look like in classrooms? How do they effect individuals? Near the end of May, LAUSD announced that it would be canceling the bulk of its summer school program. According to Garcia, at Crenshaw there will be a summer school in place, but it will only be offering class that are high school graduation requirements. Students who need courses that may be required for admittance to college, but are not required for a high school diploma may find themselves out of luck. “It’s an issue of access and equity,” says Garcia.

As for the fall offerings at Crenshaw, these RIFs will cripple the school’s counseling department. Crenshaw currently has five counselors and two program coordinators serving the counseling needs of its seven small-learning communities (SLC: all students at Crenshaw are enrolled in one of seven small learning communities). Of the fourteen RIFs served at Crenshaw, four of these were delivered to counselors. This would leave Crenshaw with one official counselor serving approximately 2100 students. More likely is that it will leave four SLCs without a counselor. The counseling needs of these students (course programming, graduation progress, college preparation) will fall to the teachers and administrators within these SLCs.

Of the ten teachers receiving RIFs, seven of these are in English Language Arts and three of these are in Social Studies. The loss of these seven positions in English could drive class size as high as 46 students per class. This number bares repeating: 46 students per class. This is Crenshaw’s first year of its reform plan around taking the school to a complete SLC program. These cuts will cripple the young program, if for no other reason than by eliminating the courses that define each SLC. In the school of Social Justice, the first class to go will most likely be a popular African-American literature course.

Having held a peaceful rally and march, it became clear to many in UTLA that a more aggressive stance would be required. The PEAC coalition within UTLA, whose members include chapter chairs at many historically underfunded LAUSD schools, became a loud voice in calling on UTLA to take more direct action against LAUSD’s proposals. According to the negotiated UTLA contract, any RIF notice i.e. pink slip must be delivered to a teacher by March 15th of the contract year. The LAUSD school board was set to vote to approve these notices on March 10, 2009. UTLA assembled en masse at the school board meeting of March 10th.

Prior to the meeting, UTLA spoke to LAUSD’s school police force; if arrests would be made, they should be made by school police. The plan was to create an unauthorized filibuster. If UTLA could prevent the meeting from taking place, LAUSD would not be able to vote to approve the RIF notices and they would miss the March 15th deadline. As the meeting came to order, UTLA president, A.J. Duffy, stepped to the microphone, completely out of order. LAUSD board member, Monica Garcia, often a UTLA ally, asked Duffy to step down. “Monica,” Duffy told her, “You know I’m not leaving from this podium.” Duffy’s microphone was shut off. By this time, the School Board Chamber was filled with teachers wearing UTLA red. Teachers began chanting and singing, even taunting members of the school board. If the teachers had a say in it, this meeting would not continue.

The School Board adjourned the meeting to a private chamber. The room was told that they would be able to watch the meeting via closed circuit television in the District Office’s cafeteria. When the Board had left the room, School Police informed teachers that if they did not disperse, they would be arrested. UTLA defied the the Police to arrest them. School Police asked media present to leave the chamber. Teachers began chanting, “Let the media stay.” No media left the room. No arrests were made. In a private chamber, the School Board voted 5-2 in favor of 8,000 Reductions in Force.

As RIF notices were distributed throughout the district, plans for a next wave of action began to take shape. Many in the union were calling for a one day strike in protest of the layoffs. At the end of April, union membership authorized the strike. The day would be Friday, May 15, 2009 and it would be known as Pink Friday.

According to the contract negotiated between UTLA and LAUSD, the union can not legally strike over layoffs. Although the members approved the strike, it would be technically illegal. Based on this stipulation in the contract, LAUSD pursued and was granted an injunction. There has been some recent historical precedence of union’s striking in the face of an injunction The members of PEAC called on UTLA to strike anyway. UTLA’s leadership voted to stage a small protest of about less than a hundred protestors in from of LAUSD’s district office. About 40 union members, including A.J. Duffy and Vice-President Josh Pechtalt, were arrested for peaceably blocking traffic. The majority of union members went to work that day. Many people did a sick-out.

Jose Lara is a UTLA chapter chair at Santee Education Complex, a high school located in the historic south Central Avenue District. According to Lara, when the strike was called off, it was a big blow to union morale. “Duffy told us that the union would strike if it was necessary,” says Lara, “Everyone thought this was going to be a strike year. It’s a contract year. Our salaries and benefits are up. When the budget cuts came, chapter chairs were prepared for strike.” Teachers at Santee passed a vote of “No Confidence” in their union leadership. Teachers at Lincoln High drafted and signed a letter of “No Confidence” to union leadership.

Santee Education Complex is a young school and has always been a hot bed of action. Just a few years ago, students, teachers and parents rallied successfully for the removal of an unpopular principal. Many students had been following closely the actions of their teachers. When the strike was called off, student leaders at Santee began to organize their own actions. Early in the week following Pink Friday, students gathered in the morning outside Santee. As more students arrived, they did not enter campus. As classes began, students began marching around the campus, calling for a halt to the teacher layoffs. School administrators were finally able to convince students to enter the school with the enticement that LAUSD Superintendent Ramón Cortines would meet with students to hear their demands. When Cortines failed to show at the scheduled meeting, students upped the ante.

On May 22, 2009, approximately 400 students gathered outside Santee around 8:00 a.m. These students marched three miles to LAUSD’s District Office. Marching around the District Office, students chanted for Cortines to meet with them. Finally, Cortines came to speak to the students. In front of the District Office, Cortines commended the students for speaking up and letting their voice be heard. Later reports on local news quoted Cortines as saying he was “disappointed in the adults who may be misleading the students. Walking out and coming to the district headquarters will not affect the budget in any way or prevent the layoff of individual employees.” Similar walkouts took place at Crenshaw High, Dorsey High, Los Angeles High, Manual Arts High, Cochrane Middle and West Adams Prep schools.

In the face of large public protest, it was clear to many within the union that the actions of union leadership were not nearly enough. When a UTLA House of Representatives turned into a cacophony of arguments and complaints, a group of union activists decided to do something about the situation. This group, which included chapter chairs at Santee, Lincoln High School, Liechty Middle School, and West Adams, began brain-storming ways that the fight could be continued and expanded. The ideas that stuck were a hunger strike and a camp-out. The hunger strike began immediately. Calls were put out for volunteers to man the camp-site and the Hungry for A Better Education campaign was launched. Visit their website at: www.LAhungry4Ed.com

Launched on May 26, 2009, the campaign’s demands are simple: 1) Protect students’ education by NOT increasing class size and 2) Protect the future of education in LAUSD by NOT laying off our new teachers. Well into its second week, supporters have been camping each night around the area schools needing the most support. In response, Cortines has been quoted as saying, that he thinks their time would be better spent gaining the attention of Sacramento rather than starving themselves. Meanwhile, Sacramento is coming to the strikers. On June 3rd, State Senator Gloria Romero paid a visit to the strike and camp-out.

In the beginning, UTLA’s officers did not back the Hungry for Ed campaign. UTLA has since begun to embrace the campaign. While UTLA had a plan for a hunger strike, it was never acted upon. As media coverage expands and momentum grows, chapter chairs from around the city have been calling fasters, interested in holding their own camp-outs and solidarity hunger strikes. According to Lara, the fasters have been receiving calls from national labor and social justice organizations and even a teacher’s union in Puerto Rico. Says Lara, “The word is out about the resistance happening in LA. It is inner city schools who are being affected the most and looking for leadership the most. Every time the leadership brings up the vote, the effects on the [San Fernando] valley schools are considered first. They’ve got to take a stand and and do what it right.”

One of the most exciting aspects to the leaders of the Hungry for a Better Education campaign is that the leadership is coming from below. Jose Lara is a first year chapter chair. Julie Van Winckel is a first year chapter chair. Gladys Mazariego-Hamdi is a first year chapter chair. These young leaders have been willing to stand up for their schools regardless of what the union leadership says. “We believe that the union should be lead from below,” says Lara, “The campaign is in it until a compromise is reached. We are looking for a compromise that keeps our class sizes at their current levels and reverse the layoffs. Then we regroup, reorganize and get ready for the battle next year.”

Follow Jose Lara on twitter: @josedelbarrio

Follow Cathy Garcia on twitter: @cathodexray

Follow UTLA on twitter: @utla2009


Two Takes on National Education Standards

June 3rd, 2009

By Norman Leahy

Responding to word that, at least in principle, 45 states and DC have agreed to the creation of a new set of national education standards, the Richmond Times-Dispatch coos:

The common-standards endeavor might complicate the effort of charter-school advocates who have been encouraged by President Obama’s openness to their cause. But it need not be a stumbling block. For one thing, wide disagreement about what kids should learn and when means any nationwide standards the states agree upon likely will set bare minimums. More to the point, the common standards will define a common finish line for each grade level. How schools get the students to cross it can still be up to them.


So all you school choicers — don’t worry your pretty little heads over this. Yes, it might make things tougher for you, but then again, maybe it won’t.

And, naturally, Virginia will benefit because the SOLs are already so rigorous that these new standards just might force those slackers elsewhere to catch-up.

Ah, the SOLs. The faith placed in bubble tests by the local gentry would be charming, or even mildly amusing…except for the manipulation of SOL data and the rather unimpressive showing of Virginia students on that already in-place national standard, the SAT.

“Bare minimums” indeed.

But another, and far less blinkered, view of national standards comes from Cato’s Neal McCluskey, who writes:

…when establishing national standards was attempted in the 1990s the real fireworks didn’t begin until proposed standards were published. Then, it seemed that everyone had a different reason they were outraged – outraged! – by the standards. At best, there was only one point of broad consensus: that the wannabe national standards simply had to go.

So are national standards a serious threat? They sure are: Were they to be enacted, the educationally deadly government-schooling monopoly would be complete, with even the ability to escape to better districts or states cut off.

But, he’s not overly concerned these standards will ever see the light of day, given the fractiousness of the parties involved.

We shall see.

(cross-posted at Tertium Quids)

Institutional Constraints: Introduction

June 3rd, 2009
By jerrid kruseTeaching as a Dynamic Activity

The inertial power of institutions is daunting. Unfortunately, the inertia of the educational institution seems more often at rest than in movement. For teachers trying to implement reform there exists many roadblocks (or landmines). Importantly, our institutions are fueled by people. Administrators, colleagues, parents, and even students often resist change. Most people are quite happy with their current states and being confronted with alternative views can result in visceral negative reactions.

In my first year of teaching, within two weeks I had sufficiently ruffled enough feathers that I had been called into the principal’s office so he could express the concerns of other teachers (that’s right, they went to the principal on me!). A group of teachers were concerned that I was not sticking to the curriculum, trying to change team meetings, not giving the same tests as other teachers, and that I should “listen more”. Needless to say, I learned a lot that year about how resistant to change the education system really is.

This series on “institutional constraints” will provide my insight/suggestions on how to navigate the political hurdles that exist for those teachers working to implement effective teaching in less than ideal professional environments. I must stress that if you can work collaboratively with other professionals in your school, that is best for all parties: yourself, your colleagues, and your students. Unfortunately, ideal conditions do not always exist. We cannot use these less than ideal conditions as an excuse to not move our own practices forward. I hope this series will provide you with some strategies to move forward even in the face of resistance.

To provide some framework for my future posts I want to introduce the concepts of 3rd and 4th order thinking. 3rd order thinkers take their cues from outside sources. For example, “the principal says I am supposed to do X, therefore I must do X”. There is nothing wrong with being a 3rd order thinker, but I want to encourage you to become a 4th order thinker. A 4th order thinker sees themselves as the authority and operationalizes other input sources (ie: the principal) as objects that can be used, ignored, or manipulated to suit their personal goals. For example” “the principal says I am supposed to do X. How can I use X in a way that will satisfy my principal and promote my own goals for students?”

An example from my own experience is using the same test as other teachers. I could have simply accepted the fact that I had to give my students the same multiple-choice test as my colleagues. Instead I used the other teachers’ tests as either review activities or pre-tests that could guide my instruction. Then, for my summative assessment of student learning I used the essay-based tests that I feel provide better indication of students’ understanding and ability to apply knowledge. While this might seem deceitful, I have abided by my principal’s wishes. I can demonstrate my use of the “common” test, and I have promoted my own goals for my students.

Realizing that you are your own authority is key to becoming a 4th order thinker. Being able to see those who stand in the way of effective instruction as objects you can work with or work around is necessary to thrive in an institution that resists change so fiercely. In upcoming posts I will provide strategies to work with/around specific institutional constraints such as: administration, colleagues, students/parents, and standards/standardized tests.

(Originally posted on Teaching as a Dynamic Activity. Follow on twitter: @jerridkruse)

Twelve Essentials for Technology Integration

June 2nd, 2009

By Richard Byrne

My school is going to a 1:1 environment with netbooks next year. I’m one of the people that teachers will be coming to for help when the netbooks are distributed next. Therefore, I’ve been trying to compile a small list of essential resources that can be used across the curriculum. The product of that work is this guide titled Twelve Essentials for Techology Integration. This guide will serve as a getting start for techers and the basis for some informal trainings that I’ll be offering to staff. I gave a hint about this yesterday on Twitter when I asked “if you could choose just three web-based resources to use in your classroom, what would they be?”
The guide is embedded below.

RSS readers may need to click through to view the guide.
It is by no means comprehensive, but it is a good starting place for those teachers who need advice on taking their first steps toward integrating technology into their classrooms. I welcome any and all feedback. If you like it and know a teacher or teachers who would benefit from it, please feel free to print it and distribute it.

If you find this guide useful, please visit Free Technology for Teachers to find more great, free resources you can use in your classroom.

"What" and "Where" Enable Learning and Higher Thinking

June 2nd, 2009

By Dr. Kevin Washburn, Contributing Editor

While their research and associated technology can be complicated, the discoveries of neuroscientists often reveal simple principles of brain functioning.

For example, neuroscientists recently traced the flow of auditory data through the brain. As sound waves spark our nervous system into action, auditory data gets sent from lower functioning areas of the brain to higher functioning areas via two “routes.” One route, the “low road,” carries data through the temporal lobe and enables us to identify what we are hearing. Simultaneously, data traveling the other route, the “high road,” moves through the parietal lobe and enables us to identify where the sound was produced.1

Visual data follows very similar routes. The “low road” flows through the temporal lobe and extracts information about what is being seen. The “high road” flows through the parietal lobe and extracts information about where objects are located.2 What and where precede deeper thinking about new data.

What does this have to do with learning? If students are asked to think critically about or apply new information without an opportunity to establish what and where, their efforts will likely yield poor results.

For example, I often observe teachers presenting a sequence of steps that students need to follow to achieve some result. As students practice, the teacher roams the room and checks student work. A student with an incorrect result is often reminded that the steps “are listed on the white board,” and directed to look there to find his mistake. But whose brain processed what and where as the teacher wrote the steps in order on the board? The teacher’s. The student’s brain focused on the what and where of the teacher’s movement and voice, not the material. As a result, the student still lacks the processing of the material necessary to enable higher functioning, such as using the sequence of steps to achieve a result.

However, if the teacher has the students write the steps of the sequence onto index cards and then arrange them in the correct order, the students process the what and where of the new material. Additionally, the teacher can assess the students’ knowledge before they begin making application. Instructive feedback at this point prevents incorrect practice.

Professional literature often refers to this processing of what and where as comprehension (not to be confused with reading comprehension), and some instructional design models recognize its role in effective teaching. Including opportunities for students to identify and sort new instructional material—to identify what and where—enables the higher functioning, such as constructing understanding and engaging in critical thinking, that we’re pursuing.

A simple principle of brain functioning; a necessary element of learning.

1. How Brain Processes Speech. ScienceDaily. http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2009/05/090526140733.htm
2. Berns, G., Iconoclast: A Neuroscientist Reveals How to Think Differently (Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing, 2008).

Switch to our mobile site