Showing posts with label Francesco Portelos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Francesco Portelos. Show all posts

Saturday, September 21, 2013

DOE whistle-blower tells how data and funding have been manipulated

As the UFT's president Michael Mulgrew intimated, a truth commission on the NYC DOE is indeed in order!

I know a mole inside the New York City Department of Education. He/she knows how the DOE manipulates data to burnish the mayor’s image. This is a good reason to oppose mayoral control of the schools. He/she says the mayor’s small schools close with regularity; that the data cannot be trusted; that the Department has shown preference to charter schools but they got lower scores on the Common Core tests than the public schools.
Most shocking: the DOE intends to delete all the emails on its computers. 
Quick, someone file a FOIL before it’s too late.

The mole writes:
“A Bad Business: The Bankruptcy of Education Policy”
Mike Bloomberg, in his recent interview with the magazine New York, admitted to following the companies run by his friends as economic barometers of New York City’s conditions. According to his website, “Mike has made education reform the focal point of his agenda,” an agenda dominated by applying business ideas to New York City’s schools. 
Are the profit margins of huge corporations truly “indicators,” as Bloomberg claims, of how the citizens of New York City are doing? Does his application of business ideas actually improve schools for children? Let’s examine the evidence to see how the next mayor can do better.
Day trader versus business owner. Under Bloomberg, the bureaucrats at Tweed see themselves as “portfolio managers.” Just like day traders, they take no responsibility for the success or failure of the shares in their portfolio. They close and open schools, just like a day trader flips stocks. They refuse to take ownership of the schools under their charge and decline to commit to ensuring their success. Of course, in this case, the stock shares are schools with roots in a community and tens of thousands of children. What do the numbers say is the end result all this? The schools opened under Bloomberg are shuttered at the same rate as older schools, leading to an overall profit of zero. What should the next mayor do? Like a small-business owner who works as hard as possible to ensure her business succeeds, he must put children first and hold the education bureaucrats accountable for the success of each and every school in New York City.

Enron-like accounting practices versus independent auditor. Under Bloomberg, the Department of Education fudges and manipulates numbers to serve their political ends. They refuse to open up their complete data sets to independent researchers at universities who publish results in peer-reviewed journals. Someti mes they release limited data to friendly “think” tanks or to organizations that need to maintain their good will. These paid advertisers publish favorable “reports” in order to continue to have access to the seemingly top secret data.

Now they plan on deleting all emails from the Department of Education right before Bloomberg leaves office, just like Arthur Anderson and Enron.

What is the end result of all this? Bloomberg touts false numbers as “evidence” of “success” while the voices of independent researchers are silenced. For example, Aaron Pallas, a professor at Columbia University’s Teachers College, was refused access to data after finding that the achievement gap did not close under Bloomberg.

What should the next mayor do? Just like an honest business has its results audited by an independent accounting firm, he must put children first and create an independent panel of researchers who are guaranteed full access to all DOE data. The reports of the panel should be made public and should inform education policy decisions in the city.

Crony capitalism versus fair business practices. Under Bloomberg, select schools are favored and granted unfair financial advantages over other schools. New schools that opened under Bloomberg are given more money per student than other schools. Charter schools are given more money per student, including free-of-charge public school space, than other schools. Favored schools are granted extra money through mysterious appeals and special grants.
This is similar to business practices in corrupt countries where relatives and friends of the ruling family are granted monopolies and other unfair advantages in business.

What should the next mayor do? He should put children first and institute a set of fair business practices under which all schools receive the full share of funding they are entitled to based on the students they serve.
Buyer beware versus fiduciary duty. For years credit card companies and other financial firms used small print and legalese to rip-off customers. Companies are now required to abide by consumer rights laws. Under Bloomberg, a complicated and frustrating high school application process has been deceptively advertised as choice for students. While some parents and students have the time and patience to navigate the process others do not.

What is the end result? Vast differences in student enrollment patterns between schools. The 10% of schools with the highest special education enrollment rates average 27.4% students with special needs. The 10% of schools with the lowest special education enrollment rates average 4.5% students with special needs. The 10% of schools with the highest English Language Learner enrollment rates average 40.8% (not including specialized schools for new immigrants). The 10% of schools with the lowest English Language Learner enrollment rates average 1%. Screened and specialized schools have a student body that is extremely unrepresentative of New York City’s children.

What should the next mayor do? He must put children first and ensure that every student has the opportunity to attend a quality school with a diverse student body that allows students to build the skills needed to function in our global economy and international city.

False advertising versus truth in advertising. Under Bloomberg, schools were supposedly being run along the lines of a business. It is now clear that this was false advertising and the “business” practices employed have bankrupted many a corporation. Ideology has determined policy rather than data and evidence.

Charter schools were touted as putting public schools to shame while the data showing that charters do not serve similar student populations and get rid of under-performing students was ignored. Then the test scores of the new common core exams were released and charter schools performed significantly worse than public schools. This data was ignored.

If Coca Cola had followed a similar “business” approach they would have continued to market “New Coke” and bankrupted the entire company. What should the next mayor do? He must put children first and ensure that all children have access to a quality early childhood education program. The economic data shows such programs have very high returns on investment and more than pay for themselves over time. We need a mayor who is willing to employ honest business practices such as ownership, honest accounting, fairness, and responsibility to the consumer in improving our schools
Whistleblower Francesco Portelos wrote on the comments how the DOE has targeted him. This is probably representative: that there are many damning details in the emails. The media's ignoring of the DOE governmental shenanigans that Portelos and the DOE mole point to is a crime against the profession of journalism of the highest order.

Absolutely, there must be an injunction against the deletions. Not only should good government groups, but NYC public advocate Bill de Blasio or comptroller John Liu must seek an injunction against the deletion of the emails. Let them show their Moxie. Portelos wrote:
I’m still only 80% through 3,000 pages that just have my name in it. I’m dumbfounded on the conversations between my principal, Supt, Tweeds, including three Deputy Chancellors, investigators and CEC members. 3,000 Pages of Secret DOE Emails. [Deputy Chancellor Kathleen Grimm Enters Stage Left]
We cannot allow destruction and I believe coog.gov and Robert Freeman need to be involved.

Friday, September 20, 2013

MOSL, Collective Punishment in the NYC Teacher Evaluation System -Portelos Got the Eval Proposals

*Postscript: the DOE, UFT Evaluation Proposals, acquired, via FOIL! -scroll to end.

Queens high school teacher Arthur Goldstein writes, posted at Diane Ravitch's blog, as "Our Thoroughly Insane Teacher Evaluation System," of the absurdity of the Student Learning Objectives, otherwise in New York City called Measures of Student Learning (MOSL). He wrote of how some teachers will be evaluated by the test scores of students in areas they do not teach. [Notice how the NYC Department of Education and the union, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), have been more recently using the official name, "Advance." --Probably, among other reasons, to reduce the number of people using the politically charged phrase, "King's imposed teacher evaluation system."]
 For state measures, some were mandated to reflect individual classes of teachers. In those cases, we opted to have department results reflect the local measures. In other words, your department Regents results could be the local measures. This would reflect not only the exams in areas you teach, but those given by your entire department. For example, if you teach algebra, the results in geometry and trigonometry will also be part of your local measures.

 . . .
If your subject, like music, art, or physical education, does not have a state assessment, your evaluation would be based on schoolwide state tests. Your local evaluation would be based on the lowest third of schoolwide state tests.

Make no mistake, this MOSL plan is collective punishment. Of course, low performance is not always attributable entirely to a teacher. The test can be poorly written. The school administration can be slipshod. The student and the community could face very difficult social circumstances.
Yet, no matter. Any teacher outside of the state-measured area will be punished for the so-called mistakes of the other teachers.

The nasty irony is that teaching to the test to ensure good test scores will not work. Yet, administrators insisting on teaching to the Common Core will want instead Danielson-compliant, Common Core-compliant lessons. Heads, you lose, tails, you lose.
A very appropriate post at Ravitch's blog in June, 2013: Carol Burris: John King’s Absurd Educator Evaluation Plan.

As Perdido Street has been chronicalling, Mulgrew has been defending APPR since May 30, before the imposed evaluation deal, defending every bit of it from Value-Added Modeling, VAM to the SLOs/MOSL. [See also his more recent post on how the new "Advance" system turns teachers into factory workers.]
And surreal that in late August and the first week of September, the UFT has been frantically trying to repeat the myths, that Common Core is a necessary and imperative curriculum, that the Advance APPR system is the best way to evaluate teachers. Most recently, at the chapter leader meeting at its Brooklyn headquarters president Michael Mulgrew went through great effort to tout NYSED Commissioner John King's imposed system as just wonderful, and that it the new system will get principals to be more fair.

The story has seeped into one mainstream education news site, Gotham Schools, September 16, 2013, which provided news that illustrates how teachers in non-tested subjects will be subjected to the effects of the test, "Instead of telling teachers apart, new evals lump some together."
Note the details in Gotham Schools' photo caption: Teachers attended training sessions about the city’s new teacher evaluation system over the summer, but some features of the system – including how teachers whose students don’t take state tests would have their student growth measured — were not decided until the school year began last week. [How ludicrous and sneaky that the DOE only announced or determined the procedure until last week. And the UFT still promotes this system, on principle? See important note on the MORE caucus at the end of this post.]
[A]cross the city this year, thousands of teachers will be rated in large part based on test scores of subjects and students that they do not teach.

[T]he scenarios are examples of how schools have tried to comply with a new teacher evaluation system that must factor student performance into final ratings. They also represent how the original purpose of the evaluations, to differentiate teachers’ effectiveness, has been squeezed by restrictive state laws, limited resources, and a tight timeline for implementation.

“It’s insane to me that 40 percent of my evaluation is going to be based on someone else’s work,” said Jason Zanitsch, a high school drama teacher who will share the same “student growth” score with colleagues in his school this year.

An incomplete evaluation system, implemented rapidly

Sixty percent of teachers’ ratings this year will come from observations by administrators. The state’s evaluation law mandates that the remaining 40 percent come from a combination of state tests and assessments chosen by each district, whose scores are all crunched to determine student growth.

But neither kind of test exists for Zanitsch and other drama teachers, at least this year. They are among the thousands of city teachers for whom the state has not approved any way to measure student learning. They include librarians, 5,000 physical education and arts teachers, and others who teach foreign languages, health, and career education.

New York City principals had until the first day of school last week to choose from a menu of limited options, first made available in early August ["Still no word from city on final details of teacher evaluation plan", August 1, 2013], for evaluating their teachers on student growth. Principals and teachers told GothamSchools that their schools have picked a ”default” option in which all teachers — even core subject teachers — will receive the same score cobbled together from all of the state tests taken in the school.

“What we are advising most of our schools and principals this year is since the principal’s rating is based on how their school collectively is doing, just take the default, especially since it means the minimum of extra work and testing for everyone,” said a person who works in a network with many high schools.

The arrangement has drawn a lawsuit in Florida ["Florida, Teacher Lawsuit Could Spread to Other States", Governing.com May 14, 2013] and criticism from dozens of city principals who last week pledged not to help execute it ["First Day of School Means Start of Controversial New Teacher Eval System", ]. But in lieu of state-approved assessments for all subjects, officials say rating teachers by their colleagues’ scores is the best option available until more credible alternatives can be developed.

This will no doubt drive teachers away from serving in challenging schools. And so, the schools will get further labeled as failing.

Collective punishment. We can call John King and his local collaborators the 21st century barbarians.

New York City teachers, band together: The MORE caucus of the UFT is pursuing a campaign for a moratorium on the use of the teacher evaluation system --text and online petition. This writer has signed. Will you? Visit the MORE site for the analyses of the new Advance teacher evaluation program. Download the hard copy of the moratorium petition and collect signatures of colleagues. Share with chapter leaders and delegates. Keep posted to the MORE site, for upcoming events (such as its first general meeting, tomorrow, Sat. 9/21, 12 - 3 pm, 224 W St., 14th Floor) to learn more about MORE and to get plugged into the moratorium campaign.

A commenter on the above blogpost at Diane Ravitch's site (Our Thoroughly Insane Teacher Evaluation System) has this suggestion on positive action teachers and supporters outside the classroom can take:
LISTEN to me! I know there is something at least pro-active you can do. Contact Carol Burris or Sean Feeney of New York Principals. They are collecting data and anecdotal data of teachers in NY State who have just received their evaluations for the first time.
Yours is a CLASSIC TEXTBOOK example of the hideous lies and injustices of this new junk science system. Write down your situation and literally send it to John King, every member of the Board of Regents, and Merryl Tisch. Send it to EVERY newspaper, local and national, hardcopy and online. Send it to your local and even the stinky NYSUT union. 
Carol and Sean can be reached at:
burriscarol@gmail.com
scfeeney@newyorkprincipals.org
I am getting my evaluation results this Tuesday, and I would not at all be surprised if I face this same situation as you.
Don’t despair!!!!!!
Postscript: Francesco Portleos secured the evaluation proposals by Freedom of Information Law requests, shared at his blog, Protect Portelos:
FOILed NYCDOE and UFT Teacher Evaluation Proposals Acquired. Let’s Compare.
What did the UFT Want? What did the NYC DOE want? What did Mayor Bloomberg want?
…and how did those topics differ from what NYSED Commissioner Dr. John King wanted in the end? 
I FOILed those May 8th proposals on May 22, 2013. Although there was some delay and loss in communication, the FOIL officer at NYSED, just emailed me both proposals. I withdrew my appeal. 
I quickly browsed through them, but then I realized “Wait…my termination hearing continues on Monday at 51 Chamber Street, 7th Fl at 10AM. I have to prepare for that over this right now.” [The entrance to use is 49 Chambers St., right next door to the parking lot (where the crew for "Law and Order" park, and tape the show). Read more on Monday, September 23's hearing here.] 
Therefore I am sharing them with you all, so you can read, dissect and compare. Enjoy and I look forward to your analysis.
UFT Evaluation Proposals
NYC DOE Evaluation Proposals
Would be a shame to see how much the DOE, UFT had coincided on the nasty elements.

Sunday, March 3, 2013

Judge: Francesco Portelos's Suit vs NYC DOE Goes Forth

BREAKING-
Federal Judge to DOE: MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED A star Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) teacher was improperly retaliated against by his principal and the New York City Department of Education. A federal judge has ruled that his case may go forward.
For those of you who are following my crazy saga, you know I filed a Federal lawsuit (Portelos v. DOE) last June. It is against the City, DOE, and Berta Dreyfus IS 49 Principal Linda Hill. They attempted to silence a parent, who is an educator, who has a backbone and is apparently thousand times savvier than them…the failed.

The city attempted to dismiss my case and my attorney Bryan Glass, Esq., just sent me great news this morning; honorable Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf has denied that motion. In non legal words … Game On!

We start deposing witnesses soon. We are starting with Principal Linda Hill, former SLT Chairperson Susanne Abramowitz, former UFT Chapter Leader Richard Candia and former NYC DOE HR Director Andrew Gordon.

“As a matter of self-preservation, a man needs good friends or ardent enemies, for the former instruct him and the latter take him to task.” the Greek Philosopher Diogenes

Read the full document here: Portelos v DOE MTD Denied

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
———————————————————–X
FRANCESCO PORTELOS,
Plaintiff,
- against -
CITY OF NEW YORK; NEW YORK CITY
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; DENNIS
WALCOTT, CHANCELLOR OF NEW YORK
CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION;
LINDA HILL, PRINCIPAL OF I.S. 49, IN HER
OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY,
Defendants.
———————————————————–X ORDER 12-CV-3141(RRM)(VMS) ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, United States District Judge.
On June 22, 2012, plaintiff Francesco Portelos filed this action seeking monetary and equitable relief against defendants the City of New York, the New York City Department of Education, Dennis Walcott, and Linda Hill (collectively “defendants”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York Civil Service Law (“N.Y. C.S.L.”) § 75-b. Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated his First Amendment and state law rights by retaliating against him for reporting fraud and misconduct at I.S. 49. (Compl. (Doc. No. 1).) Before the Court is defendants’ December 17, 2012 motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. (Mot. to Dismiss (Doc. No. 17).) For the reasons set forth below, defendants’ motion is DENIED in its entirety.

Read the full document here: Portelos v DOE MTD Denied

For the reasons stated above, defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 17) is DENIED in its entirety. This case is committed to the assigned Magistrate Judge for supervision of all pretrial matters.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Brooklyn, New York Roslynn R. Mauskopf
February 28, 2013 ____________________________________
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF
United States District Judge
Case 1:12-cv-03141-RRM-VMS Document 25 Filed 03/01/13 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 127