OEA elections: a new leader, more calls for change
By Katy Murphy
Tuesday, May 1st, 2012 at 10:11 pm in Uncategorized.
It’s election week for the Oakland teachers union, and that has extra significance this year. Betty Olson-Jones, the Oakland teachers union president since 2006 (since I’ve been covering Oakland schools!), has reached her term limit. She’ll be succeeded by Mark Airgood or Trish Gorham, who are running to replace her.
Olson-Jones has endorsed Gorham — as well as Steve Neat, Chaz Garcia, Vincent Tolliver, Janan Apaydin, Manny Lopez and Andy Young for seats on the union’s executive board.
Ballots are due on Friday. You can find the complete list of OEA candidates and their statements here.
A year ago, I blogged about a small group of teachers called Oakland TIES (Oakland Teachers for Innovative and Equitable Schooling) that proposed a new set of priorities for the Oakland Education Association. Four of the candidates for the 16-member OEA executive board endorsed by TIES members were elected: Kei Swenson, Toni Morozumi, Benjie Achtenberg, and Isabel Toscano.
This time around, a group of four candidates with similar ideas as TIES (which is no longer very active) — namely, about shifting the union’s approach and embracing a diversity of viewpoints — has emerged: Mark Hurty, Cary Kaufman, Marva McInnis and Angela Badami. Emily Sacks, a Redwood Heights special education teacher whom I interviewed last year about TIES, said she is endorsing all four.
Hurty, a second-year teacher and career-changer, even created a website for his OEA campaign. He says he feels the union leadership needs to bring more light and less heat in its dealings with the OUSD administration, that it should be open to new ideas (from revamped teacher evaluations to an online voting system to encourage participation in OEA elections), and that it should stop trying to advance its cause by maligning those at the other side of the table.
“I want us to be the big kid in the room,” he said. “We have such high moral ground under us that we don’t need to resort to some of the dirty rhetoric that gets tossed around.” (When I asked him for an example, he cited the phrase “education deform.”)
Do you agree?
Last year, fewer than 900 of the roughly 2,500 OEA members voted — less than half, as you can see from the results. How do you think turnout could be improved?
Do you feel well represented by the union leadership?
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
May 1st, 2012 at 11:08 pm
I am voting for Angela, Mark, Marva, and Cary. I do not feel represented by the union as it stands, and hope these ones win.
May 1st, 2012 at 11:38 pm
Do I feel well represented by OEA as a parent? Hmmmm. Well, they are better at that than the district. But I do feel they fall back on old strategies, play old cards of battle. I think they actively participate and inflame the negative discourse between the two and widen the divide. Not as much as the district who seems to operate as it’s own, private entity as opposed to the PUBLIC entity it is. However, I do believe that they have done what they can to guard teachers and I do believe the better the working conditions–including “job security” (how unpopular!)—the better the results.
I can’t help but notice that only one candidate identified themselves as a parent. From the few candidates I recognize, I know they are not parents.
Where are the parents?
May 2nd, 2012 at 12:00 am
I’m a parent. And when my kids were younger they attended OUSD schools. My older son now lives in Oakland with his wife. I want to work as a leader in the union to make the district better, not just for the kids in school today, but for those children who’ll be attending school here in the future. (In my dreams I’ll be a grandparent soon!)
Great schools are built on the foundation of an empowered, respected, and professional teaching force. Our union leadership should be focused on assuring that the conditions in our classrooms reflect an acknowledgement of these values.
May 2nd, 2012 at 7:53 am
Katy – Can you run the stats on student enrollment at OUSD – in the last 40 years or so, how is enrollment doing? And the demographics if they are available?
I’m wondering if there is a clear crisis on shrinking enrollment – or if the enrollment is dramatically changing demographically.
If this is the case it would seem the union should be addressingh the meaning of this for the workers. So far I don’t think any of the factions in the union have done so.
May 2nd, 2012 at 9:20 am
More light,less heat…… a little idealistic, but I like that. Someone who looks to change and impact the future, I like that too. I can’t vote, but I will spread the word, Mark. I am trusting that you mean what you say because someone does need to be the adult in the room for the sake of the children.
May 2nd, 2012 at 9:29 am
When I was an Oakland teacher, I certainly felt under-represented by OEA. The divisive rhetoric employed by OEA leadership does very little to build bridges that our students & teachers need, and in my opinion might be the biggest stumbling block to progress in Oakland. To be honest, the way OEA leadership handles teacher “interests” was one of the primary reasons why I and many others became part of the 72% of teachers that leave OUSD in less than 5 years. I hope that can change.
I have seen first hand many times how Mark Airgood (running for President vs Trish Gorham), Tania Kappner (running for First Vice President vs. Steve Neat), and Manny Lopez (running for seat 10 vs Cary Kaufman) all consistently speak in divisive terms and are unwilling to promote positive discussion on these issues. I am sure they are well-intentioned people and good teachers, but nevertheless, their attitudes and tactics have been drivers of the stalemate between OEA and OUSD.
On the other hand, I have personally met Cary Kaufman and Marva McInnis on several occasions and find that both are respectful in conversations with others, regardless of their opinions. They are certainly forward-thinking teachers who will help take OEA on a more productive path through more reasoned rhetoric and a commitment to balancing student & teacher interests.
I have not met Mark Hurty or Angela Badami, but I have read their materials and believe they will also act with integrity on the board, just like Cary & Marva will.
Endorsements – driven by faith that these candidates will bring new, positive conversations to the OEA board, with the hope that OEA can become a key player in moving Oakland forward, rather than maintaining the (rather dreary) status quo.
President – Trish Gorham
VP – Steve Neat
#6 – Angela Badami
#8 – Marva McInnis
#9 – Mark Hurty
#10 – Cary Kaufman
May 2nd, 2012 at 9:49 am
I wish we had something other than the status quo (Gorman), or BAMN (Airgood) to choose from.
May 2nd, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Harold,
Unfortunately it looks as though you are stuck with ultra militants, and the taxpayers can draw their own conclusions.
May 2nd, 2012 at 2:52 pm
I sincerely hope whoever is elected works to make sure that teachers fulfill their contract to differentiate the curriculum UP as well as down the spectrum of learning. In the time my sons were in OUSD schools only two teachers in their entire education differentiated for gifted students who knew the material before the teachers “taught” it.
Teachers, the union and principals make all sorts of excuses – they were not trained, they do not want to take classes, we should be happy our kids are bright, our kids were given these gifts from “GOD” and should use them to help others in the class, additional learning should go on outside of school, here are more math problems they can do after they finish the regular work, here are more spelling words they can write three times even though they scored 100% on the pretest and so on and so on.
We don’t hear carpenters saying the company or the union did not train them on new equipment or new building techniques, nor do we hear attorneys saying they didn’t get a chance to sit in on the class about some new rulings and we don’t hear nurses saying that the hospital did not give them information about new screening techniques. These professionals seek professional development and perform what is their contractual duties to perform.
Winners – contestants – please be fair to everyone and pledge that you will support excellent teaching AND fulfillment of the contractual obligations to differentiate for all students in your classes.
May 2nd, 2012 at 11:25 pm
It’s unfortunate that most writers on this blog won’t identify themselves by name; it makes it hard to trust some of the comments, since they appear to be based on hearsay as opposed to fact. I wonder how many of the anonymous writers have any idea who is on the current OEA leadership team (which is very diverse, in terms of race, ethnicity, age, and outlook). I wonder how many have ever set foot in a union meeting or actually attended a union action. And with all due respect to the candidates, how many of the “progressive slate” have ever served on an OEA committee, attended an OEA function, or engaged in constructive dialogue with current leaders? As I’ve said to several of them, I welcome new leadership, and I think most would agree that I have consistently encouraged members to get involved in OEA in a variety of ways — by joining committees, attending Executive Board and Rep Council meetings, attending conferences, coming to OEA socials to get to know the people who are currently doing the work, etc. Unfortunately only one of the “progressive slate” candidates has shown any prior interest in OEA. It’s easy to throw stones at the people who are trying valiantly to defend our rights and the rights of our students in the face of both nationwide and local attacks, working overtime to try and organize our members, collaborate when appropriate with the district and fight back when they violate our contract. It’s a lot harder to join in the hard work.
May 2nd, 2012 at 11:36 pm
The low voter turnout among Oakland teachers has everything to do with a union that seems hell bent on advancing every radical agenda going. As an Oakland teacher I am infuriated by the OEA wasting time and resources in pontificating on international issues that have absolutely nothing to do with Oakland or the needs of our students and schools.
Neither Airgood or Kappner are honest in their campaign literature about their involvement with BAMN. Their views are utterly unrepresentative of the majority of Oakland teachers and the people of Oakland who do not want a Trotskist revolution. Oakland schools and teachers would get a lot more support if it was made clear that our union was not being infiltrated and/or run by a small clique of America-hating extremists who use threats and intimidation to achieve their goals in the face of democratic decisions and procedures.
A new generation of teachers is coming up with no connection to, nor desire to relive the glory days of the 1960s. We want ours to be a respected and well paid profession and realize that to do so requires a fundamental change in the practices and policies of teaching unions especially with regards to getting rid of incompetent teachers who hurt our profession and more impotently the students they are supposed to be teaching (as opposed to all often indoctrinating).
I want an OEA president who, right off the bat, acknowledges that their election does not signify a ringing endorsement for all their ideas. Only a political extremist could see a turnout of 25% and a vote for them personally of about 60% of that tiny turnout as giving them any kind of democratic legitimacy – especially when it comes to making grandiose statements on behalf of all Oakland teachers.
May 2nd, 2012 at 11:46 pm
And where Miss Jones pray tell was the interest for Oakland teachers in the OEA’s decision to “condemn” Israel in its defense of its citizens against the genocidal thugs of Hamas?
You have no business uttering such things when you and your other board members are elected by no more than about 15% of Oakland teachers. To speak on all our behalves in this and other matters shows a breathtaking arrogance.
The average teacher does not have time to get involved in OEA matters because we are too busy trying to meet the day-to-day needs of our students. You might recognize this and perhaps temper your language, policies, and activities but I see no evidence of this so far.
May 2nd, 2012 at 11:49 pm
Experience matters. Period. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. No time for dilly-dallying. No time for the next new thing. Too easy. Quickly lost anyway. I’ll take experience over romance any day of the week. Check it. At the end of the day, folks should err on the side of informed and relentless advocacy. That said, here’s to the new faces on the block sustaining a presence within the OEA from here on out. So not threatened.
May 3rd, 2012 at 12:00 am
No Manny we’ve seen the history of the OEA over the last 10 years and we’re determined not to repeat it by ensuring that you have no position of power within the OEA.
What you’re effectively saying is that only those co-opted by the OEA are fit to serve when what we need is a new leadership unencumbered by outdated and unrepresentative dogma.
Oh and by the way what on Earth does a person standing for election against you have to do with you feeling “threatened”. Do you feel yourself entitled to a seat? Why is a challenger a threat? This is precisely the kind of divisive rhetoric that was pointed out by another poster above.
May 3rd, 2012 at 6:15 am
I want to know why OEA still defends teachers who are really bad at their jobs.
One such teacher teaches down the hall from me and the teacher’s ineffectiveness strains everyone: the kids, the teacher, the parents, the hallway, the administration. And when the principal evaluates this teacher out, OEA comes to the rescue.
Why does OEA protect members, even if they’re really ineffective? Not fair for anyone, especially those of us who work hard and are good for kids.
Betty Olsen says she is for kids but her actions prove that she is for adults, regardless of quality, performance, improvement, etc.
May 3rd, 2012 at 7:12 am
I’d like to address the perception that ‘the leadership’ of OEA is some monolithic, unchanging group of people with closed minds and a set agenda. It is true that there are some people who have worked in OEA and served in different leadership roles for a long time. It is also true that there are many new faces on the board. I think this mixture of experience in OEA over time is very important. It is good to have people who remember different people, events, experiences and have prior knowledge of the contract, the history, and the people involved. We would be lost without having some people with experience to guide and inform us. We face new challenges, new faces, and these are different times but in the end, things are not so different, and the purpose of OEA – to defend the rights of teachers- remains the same.
I have just finished my 3rd year on the OEA board, and was active on the CAT team before that. Toni, Isabel, Benjie, Vince, Chaz, Rodney & Aimee (am I forgetting anyone?) have all joined the board since I began, I believe. We do have a great mix of experience in OEA, experience as teachers, grade levels represented, races & ethnicities, ages, gender – you name it. This board has been extremely civil, but not without a variety of opinions and perspectives, which is essential. It is a very dedicated group, doing lots of volunteer hours for all of us. I intend to keep working within OEA whether or not I retain my board seat. I hope others that have stepped up to run will become familiar faces in the organization.
We have recently had a sea change on the board of sorts, where some people with outside affiliations who were more interested in pushing the agenda of their outside group on OEA members and not doing much work to really build OEA are currently off the board. I worry that this new slate of candidates is really here to do the work of a different organization and not OEA. I myself am here to work for teachers. That said, I feel all teachers inherently are interested in what is best for students, or we wouldn’t be teachers. Anyone constantly calling into question the professionalism of their colleagues should not be trusted to lead the organization that is there to protect (or strengthen) our rights as professionals to do our jobs with some modicum of dignity, benefits, and remuneration.
May 3rd, 2012 at 8:05 am
I appreciate Betty and Manny’s comments, and I agree that experience does matter. I appreciate the anger and frustration that the current OEA leadership must feel about the outcome of past negotiations. I understand why it’s difficult to trust the district administration. But having experience is one thing, and acting on that experience is another. The history that we are doomed to repeat, we have been predictably repeating for some time now.
Effective strategies produce results, but the results of the strategies the union has employed in negotiations in the recent past have not produced results at the negotiating table. We have an imposed contract.
May 3rd, 2012 at 8:14 am
PDD, I find it disappointing that you feel like you have to attack a leader who is ACTUALLY doing something. Manny goes to school sites and helps ACTUAL teachers. Furthermore, OEA DOES NOT protect ‘bad’ teachers. It only protects DUE PROCESS. If you have a problem with a ‘bad’ teacher, that’s the job of your PRINCIPAL to fix, not the OEA. Also, who are you to judge who a ‘bad’ teacher is?
Also, those individual who are running on a platform that is informed by the right wing propaganda machine of GOPS have done NOTHING in or for OEA. They are not involved in any committees or have tried to help out their fellow teachers in ANY tangible way. Yes, we need divergent voices in leadership of the union. We do not, however, need the meat puppets of GOPS pressing down their anti-teacher, anti-public school rhetoric.
May 3rd, 2012 at 8:15 am
So, Mark, what effective strategies are you proposing?
May 3rd, 2012 at 8:32 am
Who are the BAMN candidates?
May 3rd, 2012 at 9:10 am
Starshaped,
Can you ever cogitate ideas without the tiresome right wing boogeyman shtick. Many of these districts have underperformed for decades all on their own with rivers and streams of taxpayer money that hasn’t made much difference. Change will be found on an individual and cultural basis, once personal responsibility is regained. This culture of dependence is to blame, and your union, and people like you,Mr.Wright,Mr.Visnick are all enablers of anti-societal behavior(and or) norms:
1. The OEA has taken a position against gang injunctions.
2. Mr.Visnick has proclaimed that society is to blame for aberrant behavior -Quote” Our black young men in Oakland are collectively in deep distress. They are both victims of institutional racism and cause much of the discipline issues in our Oakland classrooms as a result of this oppression”.
3. Regarding Mr.Wrights beliefs this was taken from SJ mercury “What seems to drive Wright is the belief that, despite rhetoric to the contrary, the same system that deliberately failed him more than 70 years ago remains in place today.
“It was never intended to let American black people move up from the bottom of the ladder, no matter how often we prove ourselves,” he said.
So we have(or have had) an AA President,Congressmen,Senators,judges,CEO’s, and so forth and things have not changed? There are differences in how hard the climb to success is, but success or failure is up to the individual(the facts of history are indisputable).
May 3rd, 2012 at 9:28 am
Observer,
After reading the statements, I really can’t differentiate who the BAMN candidates are. No matter what happens, I guess BAMN wins! Shocking! Isn’t it?
May 3rd, 2012 at 9:29 am
I know of two candidates who are also organizers with BAMN (The Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary): Mark Airgood (running for OEA president) and Tania Kappner (running for vice president).
May 3rd, 2012 at 10:14 am
I appreciate many of the comments above and agree that there is something to be said for the wisdom that experience can bring. I also understand, however, that we have a serious crisis of participation in our union. I worry about how much of that is caused by the fact that people do not feel welcomed or like all viewpoints are respected when they attend union meetings. I know that at my first Rep Council meeting I personally had an experience that made me question whether I should ever attend again. It took a lot of strength and courage to show my face again and it continues to require strength and courage to stand up to others who may not always agree with my ideas and discount them, when they know very little about me, because I don’t have “experience.” This is not the way to encourage people, especially newer teachers, to become actively engaged.
While some of those running seem to have not much “experience” with OEA I encourage people to think about whether their decision to run for Executive Board could have come out of a similar experience of attempting to become engaged and feeling unwelcome. It could very well be that in an effort to avoid making others feel this way, certain people are interested in running. As far as I understand, any teacher in the district is eligible to be on the Executive Board and there is no amount of service time to OEA required in order to run.
I have nothing but respect for many of the candidates running for Executive Board. I truly value the commitment and experience of all of the teachers involved in OEA. I want to put out there that I am also endorsing Trish Gorham and Steve Neat. I thought long and hard and struggled to make endorsements. For seat #9, for example, I find Janan Apaydin exactly the kind of veteran teacher that newer teachers need to meet and learn from. She is welcoming, a good listener, kind, and respectful. In making a final decision, however, I was concerned about a 16-seat Executive might be 3/16 occupied by teachers from the same school (Kaiser Elementary, if Trish and Steve both won). I think Mark Hurty, though a newer teacher, would bring excellent perspective to the table as a former OUSD student and parent. I understand that politics are complicated but I also hope we can avoid slinging insults at each other during this election season and all be glad that we at least have enough interest to make these races competitive.
May 3rd, 2012 at 11:05 am
J.R.,do you ever tire of saying ignorant things? There is a concerted effort by the Koch Brothers, Eli Broad, and the Walton Family AND the money used to set up was given by the family behind Dryers whose ONLY goal is to destroy public schools using hand wringing progressives (i.e. conservatives in liberal clothing). The teachers that are part of that group ARE effectively the meat puppets of the right’s attack on unions and public workers. OPEN YOUR EYES!!
Emily, I like you as a person, but I know Mark Hurdy has not been a part of OEA in any way in the last few years. He could have helped with CAT team, but he hasn’t. He could be part of bargaining, but he isn’t. He could have been involved ALL YEAR BUT HAS DONE NOTHING!!! I’m sure he works really hard for his students and is an excellent advocate and teacher but you have to put the hard work in first.
In fact Emily, why aren’t you running for the board? You are, in fact, a person who I would support in a run for eboard because YOU DO put in the hard work. Malva, who violently yelled at our president, is exactly who we DON’T need on the board. You have tied yourself who want to the world and they want it now, and frankly, that isn’t going to work on the board. I believe, even if half of these GOPS people get on the board, they won’t show up on time or stay or put in the work because they DON’T KNOW how much work it takes.
As far as the board having too many Kaiser people, guess what? That is the ONLY school that show up to things on a regular basis and involve themselves in the union and various committees. It’s very easy to complain from the sidelines. It’s a different story when you’re actually playing the game.
May 3rd, 2012 at 11:26 am
Starshaped,
That covers the last 10-15 years, what about before that? Was it their fault that kids have been under-educated for 3-4 decades(functional illiterates, and low grad rates)? If the system had not failed the children, there would never have been an opportunity for Broad,Gates, Koch’s or anyone else to step in(I am not denying that they are stepping in, but who gave them that opportunity)? You are in deep denial of the historical evidence. As long as the check in in the mail, some people just don’t care!
May 3rd, 2012 at 11:56 am
To all OEA teachers who are disturbed by the anti-union, anti-public service worker kinds of remarks. DON’T GET SUCKED INTO THE PURPOSE OF THIS BLOG TOPIC WHICH IS TO TRY TO POLITIC OUR UNION BUSINESS AND ELECTION. Responding to this garbage will only unsettle your senses. OUR ELECTION IS FIRST AND FOREMOST OUR OWN UNION BUSINESS. Let this blog run it’s usual hot air and ill will towards honest workers and true educators. It is a no win situation responding to closed minds and big mouths.
May 3rd, 2012 at 12:25 pm
It is a no-win situation trying to convince closed minds and big mouths, but clearly some of those closed minds and big mouths belong to union members as well. Starshaped claiming that the teachers running against incumbents are “GOP Meatpuppets” is a personal attack and insult to people who seem to have the best interests of kids in mind. That, I believe, is the knee jerk antagonism that has failed to get any results for the union OR the students for years.
I do not know ANY of these people personally but I do know this: the union has not benefited its members or its students for years. If the leaders of ANY organization have not done anything positive for the organization, then they should be changed. Experience means nothing if it has not learned from its failures. The last time there were contract negotiations, the union demanded a 20% raise when the entire state was cutting its budgets 10%. The district tried to pass a parcel tax that would have directly benefited teacher salaries, but that was opposed by the union and voted down. What did the “experienced” leaders do to rectify these disastrous decisions that greatly impacted the public’s view of the union?
May 3rd, 2012 at 1:11 pm
Del,
Thank you for posting some facts about union and district blunders. Now, because open-minded people deal in facts some links to back up those facts(re: the raise, and other issues):
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/name-em-and-shame-em/Content?oid=1069272
http://www.safero.org/undercurrents/undercurrents312.html
May 3rd, 2012 at 1:24 pm
David Laub is right, this is none of public’s business. This is union business. I just wish the public keep out of it, including GOPS.
May 3rd, 2012 at 1:56 pm
I believe very strongly that sunshine is the best disinfectant. As a teacher & administrator, I always welcomed the public (in a non-disruptive way) to see what’s really going on in schools. A club running things behind closed doors will always be a problem whether it is the senate, school board, PTA, or OEA. And since the OEA is a union of public employees, payed by public money and working in public schools, I think the public should know. I agree that they should not worry about what anonymous, non voting non members say (including myself) but if the OEA or anyone else has anything to hide (besides legally private information) then we will indeed have problems.
May 3rd, 2012 at 3:02 pm
One last quick note (oh the joys of being retired)…. I do have a horse in this race. They are my grandchildren, who like myself and my children attend Oakland public schools. The OEA, the district, school admin, janitors, secretaries and my neighbors all have the same ideal in mind: what is best for children. We may not always agree 100% what is best, or how to get there, but we all have the best possible education for these children as our goal. That is my assumption and argument and perhaps not all will agree but certainly if there is anyone involved in education who does not want what is best for students they should remove themselves from their job or be removed by some other party.
One thing I will say that should also be self-evident is that we need to work together to arrive at a point where the children get what they need. I’ve seen countless divorces that ruin kids because the parents work against each other. I see a country being torn asunder because two political parties refuse to work together. The founding fathers said it best : divided we fall (or fail).
For these reasons I think that the Union vs District attitude has to change. Certainly there will be disagreements and there is a history of bad feeling on both sides. But if what we care most about is the kids we will put the past behind us for their benefit. (Heck the article cited above is from 2003… kindergarteners than are in high school now).
For this reason I find some of the rhetoric here and else where scary. I found this quote on Mark Airgood’s campaign flyer: “Collaboration gets us nowhere.” I do not know Mr. Airgood & I sympathize with the frustration of those who give their all every day for the kids, but that is simply not how we move forward in any arena. That attitude would lead to failure in business, government, or family. And in education, when adults fight, kids lose.
May 3rd, 2012 at 3:16 pm
First, a huge thanks to all who have endorsed and encouraged me during this “campaign season.” I would also like to thank all past and current OEA leaders for devoting your time and efforts to teacher working conditions and the academic achievement of OUSD’s students. Finally, thank you to Katy Murphy for opening up your blog to such an important conversation about OEA leadership.
I would like to explain what motivated me to run for a seat on the Executive Board and why it seems as though I have been absent from OEA functions until recently. Although only one of our “progressive slate”
of candidates has been formally involved in OEA business, it does not mean that the others of us are oblivious to the issues affecting
students and teachers. There are various reasons teachers do not join OEA committees or attend OEA functions. For me, it was credential classes, working the after-school program at Westlake, preparing
differentiated ELA, Math, Science and Social Studies lesson for my SDC class, and making sure that my IEP caseload was finished. This school year has been my 3rd in an SDC classroom (5th overall) and I am more
in control of my practice than ever before. I have finished my Level 1 credential and am now able to devote some time to help guide policy for our district. I have attended various OEA meetings and functions during this school year. Some examples are the Nov. 2nd General Strike, Mutual Matching forum, OEA contract convention, and the Tribune-sponsored TSA forum. Being part of these meetings inspired me to become more involved in OEA business and I believe I have some good ideas about how to get even more teachers involved. I want OEA members, the district, and the citizens of Oakland to respect our union and to view it as a place where positive, pro-active, student-centered ideas are not only welcomed, but are embraced. I hope to have the opportunity to express my ideas and guide policy as a member of the Executive Board. If I do not end up on the Executive Board, I will continue to be present at union functions and be a voice for my students, myself, and like-minded teachers who may not be able to attend.
One final clarification: I am not affiliated with “GOPS” (do you mean GO Public Schools?), nor any other educational non-profit.
May 3rd, 2012 at 3:48 pm
@#24
You’re not the only one who is concerned with the representation from one school! When a parent is looking for a good fit for their kindergartner (and we all know what harrowing experience doing that is in Oakland) one considers many positives and negatives to compare and contrast between schools. It never occurs to one to look at the union standings of the teachers at a school. No wonder the district has it in for our school and is constantly trying shut it down in spite of it’s success. So many things did not make sense before this. I feel like someone just turned the lights on.
I support the union while not agreeing with everything it does or does not do. I support these three teachers and, indeed, have been hugely impressed with their work ethic. We tend to think of the heavily union invested folks as protecting their hours. I and any parent at Kaiser can attest that our teachers have not seen a 40 hour, weekends off work week—-maybe ever? Certainly not this year!
May 3rd, 2012 at 4:27 pm
Starshaped, I have tried to stay out of this discussion, because I have been to union meetings and found them extremely uncomfortable. I am not anxious to get involved in this debate. But, I am assuming you are talking about Ms. McInnis, who you call “Malva” in your commentary. I was at the meeting where she confronted Ms. Olson. What I saw was not violent. What I saw was another frustrated teacher who was unsatisfied with her representation to had the courage to confront our union president. Yes, there were were raised voices and emotion, but there was nothing violent about it. I have heard lots of loud, negative statements come out of the mouth of Betty, Manny and the others, and at times I’ve even found it intimidating. But no one has accused them of being “violent.” Perhaps you choose the word violent because it came from a black woman who confronted a white woman. But I hardly think its fair to use that word. If this is what happens when somebody stands up to our current union leaders, I can understand why so many stay away. I’m routing for Marva and the other new people. We need someone who is not afraid to challenge the status quo.
May 3rd, 2012 at 4:37 pm
Yes Starshaped anyone who opposes the current ineffective and dogmatic policies of the OEA has to be a GOP puppet don’t they? You might not have noticed by most people are firmly in the center politically and this is where the OEA needs to be to gain public support for public education.
If all you can resort to is consipracy-theory fueled personal attacks then its quite clear that engaging in any kind of substantive argument with you is utterly pointless much like many of your so-called arguments.
May 3rd, 2012 at 4:44 pm
Oh and to answer your question from earlier Starshaped.
I am allowed to judge people just like you seem to feel free to judge people it’s just that I don’t do it while spewing invective, insinuation, and leaving my caps key on.
A bad teacher is one with no classroom control. A bad teacher is one with no plan. A bad teacher is one that accepts low performance. A bad teacher is one with no technological skills. A bad teacher is one who milks the system and hides behind what you call “due process” to protect their position at the expense of their students. None of these things of course are things that the OEA seems to worry about. Remind me again how many tenured teachers have been dismissed from OUSD in the last year or even 10 years?
May 3rd, 2012 at 8:35 pm
Del,
You’re a hero–”The last time there were contract negotiations, the union demanded a 20% raise when the entire state was cutting its budgets 10%. The district tried to pass a parcel tax that would have directly benefited teacher salaries, but that was opposed by the union and voted down. What did the “experienced” leaders do to rectify these disastrous decisions that greatly impacted the public’s view of the union?”
OEA is a mess. You’re so right about experience–it should disqualify one from running for union leadership.
May 3rd, 2012 at 8:38 pm
Marva McInnis no longer has my vote. I downloaded her flyer posted through Mark Hurty’s web page in the file menu, Document Properties and it clearly states that it was authored by the pro charter Go Public Schools. Talk about meddling in OEA.
May 3rd, 2012 at 8:59 pm
I want my dues back,
Some people earnestly believe that you should stick with what has been working “Oh,so well”, over the last few decades(just look at the results). That is what I call being insulated from reality(Einstein would call it insanity).
May 3rd, 2012 at 10:21 pm
This has been the healthiest thread on this blog in a while with people actually discussing real ideas and concerns. Real disagreement. Agenda-driven rhetoric on the backburner. Refreshing.
>.OEA DOES NOT protect ‘bad’ teachers. It only protects DUE PROCESS. If you have a problem with a ‘bad’ teacher, that’s the job of your PRINCIPAL to fix, not the OEA.<>Also, who are you to judge who a ‘bad’ teacher is?<>The last time there were contract negotiations, the union demanded a 20% raise when the entire state was cutting its budgets 10%.<>I found this quote on Mark Airgood’s campaign flyer: “Collaboration gets us nowhere.”<> I sympathize with the frustration of those who give their all every day for the kids, but that is simply not how we move forward in any arena. That attitude would lead to failure in business, government, or family. And in education, when adults fight, kids lose.<<
Well said.
May 3rd, 2012 at 10:23 pm
The arrows must have messed it up. Here’s what I said
“OEA DOES NOT protect ‘bad’ teachers. It only protects DUE PROCESS. If you have a problem with a ‘bad’ teacher, that’s the job of your PRINCIPAL to fix, not the OEA.”
I’ve got a beach house in Kansas to sell you…
Reminds me of a conversation I had with my cousin who is a defense attorney. I always chided him about the idiots he represented. His answer was always that the system is set up in a way that if everybody did their job correctly the truth would prevail. It wasn’t until he got sick and stopped working that he confided in me how dirty he felt getting people off who were obviously “nutso”. I wonder if it’s a similar feeling at OEA sometimes. They probably spend most of their time defending the crazies. Most of the good teachers are rarely in need of support outside of making sure they get the best possible contract without bankrupting the system.
“Also, who are you to judge who a ‘bad’ teacher is?”
If our teachers don’t know the difference between a good teacher and a bad teacher… our children have no chance. Really.
“The last time there were contract negotiations, the union demanded a 20% raise when the entire state was cutting its budgets 10%.”
That’s funny.
“I found this quote on Mark Airgood’s campaign flyer: “Collaboration gets us nowhere.”
That’s funny.
“I sympathize with the frustration of those who give their all every day for the kids, but that is simply not how we move forward in any arena. That attitude would lead to failure in business, government, or family. And in education, when adults fight, kids lose.”
Well said.
May 3rd, 2012 at 10:41 pm
I understand that the executive board refuses to meet with Tony Smith. What’s up with that? When did the OEA become “the party of no”?
May 3rd, 2012 at 11:11 pm
Really? Can you find that in the minutes?
May 3rd, 2012 at 11:28 pm
About to go night-night but for the record should state that I have never shied away from meeting with just about anyone, Broad, Gates, and Rhee included (if only to give them a piece of my mind), and have said as much as long as I can remember. I am what I am what I am or something to that effect. Thank you Popeye.
May 3rd, 2012 at 11:34 pm
Steve,
I have never made a secret of my GO participation. I admire their work and support their efforts to help improve OUSD. Yes, I did use the GO computers to type my flyer, as it has publishing software that I do not have at home. If the fact that I exercise my right to free association and support community organizations that participate in the effort to improve Oakland Schools is something you find intolerable, then I’ll simply have to live with the loss of your vote. I do not abide guilt by association.
May 4th, 2012 at 12:27 am
Let us please not forget the purpose of a union, OEA or otherwise.
Labor union: An association, combination, or organization of employees who band together to secure favorable wages, improved working conditions, and better work hours, and to resolve grievances against employers.
It is unbelievable to me that unions, which came about to protect workers (including teachers) from abusive treatment from employers, are being vilified the way they are today, and their purpose twisted. This makes the very existence–and strengthening–of unions even
more crucial.
Teachers’ unions are not to blame for low achievement in Oakland or anywhere else. If students who come to school with “issues” (and we have many) are to be successful, supports have to be in place where they are needed. In many schools, they are not. Even “rock star” teachers need the right supports and conditions to be effective. In contract negotiations, teachers have fought hard with district officials to create or maintain those conditions. Unfortunately, for students as well as teachers, it has often been a losing battle.
It almost feels like I’m being politically incorrect to point out that teachers–especially during a period when they’re being attacked from all directions–need an institution that can focus on ensuring their fair treatment. That’s okay. Being PC is not one of my strengths anyway. My OEA votes will be cast for candidates who understand the purpose and the value of our union and who will work to make it stronger.
May 4th, 2012 at 6:30 am
@Let’s Get Real,
I agree with you. A strong union is a union which works to serve all it’s members. A strong union is a union in which all members actively participate. A strong union is a union who’s leaders speak with a unifying voice. A strong union employs negotiating strategies that secure the rights and benefits that its members deserve. A strong union protects its members from injustice.
The challenge for our leadership is to stare down that vilification you mention without becoming embittered. Those who vilify public employee unions are chipping away at public opinion, and in some instances, we’re helping them by allowing ourselves to get pulled into pyrrhic battles. We’ve got to stop swinging at pitches in the dirt.
May 4th, 2012 at 7:18 am
@ Mark:
Sometimes, merely speaking the truth can sound like it’s coming from a place of bitterness because of the dirt it exposes.
Playing nice only works when you’re dealing with those who have respect for you. Oakland teachers are not in the best position right now, but past bargaining team members can tell you what position we COULD be in if we let our guard down with district officials.
May 4th, 2012 at 8:15 am
This thread’s headline is misleading and irresponsible. Last year 4-5 teachers got together, called themselves Oakland TIES, and conducted a survey that 100 teachers took. That exercise was no more “a call for change” from our members than this year’s election. Playing musical EBoard seats does not address this district’s decreasing enrollment and OEA’s declining membership.
FormerOaklandTeacher in post#6 names 3 names as if any three members and/or elected members, or any 4-5 member splinter group, or any 4 candidate slate will ever be the sole voice of OEA membership or leadership. This entire slate could win and discover that OEA Executive Board is a recommendation body to the Site Representative Council. If this “call for change” were authentic and not rhetoric based then it would be driven by actual, current, and consistent participation within OEA and not eleventh hour candidacies for elected positions.
May 4th, 2012 at 9:40 am
Let’s get real wrote
“Let us please not forget the purpose of a union, OEA or otherwise.
Labor union: An association, combination, or organization of employees who band together to secure favorable wages, improved working conditions, and better work hours, and to resolve grievances against employers”.
If that is the purpose then why are they:
1. Stepping way over the boundaries of their stated purpose and involving their opinion politically in the Israel/Palestine situation?
http://labornet.org/cgi-bin/intbd/cgi-bin/intbd.cgi?action=read&id=273
2. Supporting a movement that is tearing the community, instead of strengthening it.
http://occupyoakland.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/oakland-education-association-backs-4-p-m-city-hall-%E2%80%98occupy-oakland%E2%80%99-rally-demanding-economic-justice/
3.Aided and abetted the shutdown of vital economic ports(that pay the people who pay property taxes that pay your salaries).
http://oeaevents.blogspot.com/2011/12/oea-endorses-oakland-port-shutdown.html
http://www.nationofchange.org/protestors-occupy-ports-oakland-and-beyond-1323873665
You whine and moan about economic justice(whatever that truly means), but you fail to understand is that the majority of jobs in this country are supplied by small businesses, not Corporations. The small businesses were hurt by these protests, and you didn’t care.
http://www.marxist.com/united-states-oakland-30000-strong-march.htm
You and your unions always say how important the children are(besides a revenue stream), well why doesn’t the union take a small portion of those hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money funneled to it through mandatory dues and organize some voluntary tutoring at shelters for kids. Its way past time to stop enriching the select few, it’s time to give back some time to the kids.
http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_2_california-unions.html
http://www.educationnews.org/commentaries/opinions_on_education/54478.html?print
http://richgibson.com/neasalaries09.html
May 4th, 2012 at 9:45 am
Let’s get real,
Bottom line, when an entity(such as OEA,CTA,NEA)stray outside their stated purpose, they become a clownish caricature not an organization of professionals.
May 4th, 2012 at 2:15 pm
Let’s Get Real: I will assume that you are a classroom teacher. This is just an assumption on my part.
Do you differentiate for your gifted students every day across all subjects you teach?
If you had a gifted student in your class whose knowledge level of a core subject went above your level, would you learn the subject enough to teach the top students in your class?
Do you know what “over-excitabilities” are in gifted students and would you know the difference between these common gifted ways of seeing the world and ADHD or other learning issues?
While it may seem that I vilify teachers, nearly every teacher I know say no to each of these questions – yet, the ability to answer yes to each and every question is part of the contract ratified by YOUR union.
Parents and community members spend countless hours sitting on committees, supporting teachers through funding classroom needs, voting for bond measures and taxes, donating money to pay for seminars in supporting gifted students AND paying for the substitutes for the day for teachers who attend or giving stipends for teachers who attend on the weekends, yet so few teachers will help this group of students.
The district loses 40% of all high achieving students at the end of fifth grade costing the district $6 million – the amount that was to be saved by closing five schools. You may consider it vilifying teachers – for those of us who were forced out of the district to meet our children’s needs we consider it to be asking you to live up to what you have already agreed to do for the job and the pay you receive.
May 4th, 2012 at 6:03 pm
$6 million is 3 times the amount they said they would save closing schools. Which they are not going to save. Anyone want to take bets they’re going to lose money by closing the schools they way they did it?
May 4th, 2012 at 9:26 pm
J.R.
I am one member of my union, and I clearly stated what I felt union priorities should be and the type of candidates I would support. Teachers are as diverse in their political beliefs and concerns as the general population, and some feel strongly that issues such as those you mention impact our students and their families–including those who are Palestinian (yes, there are Palestinian students in Oakland)or Jewish.
I personally did not “whine” or “moan” about economic justice, although I believe there are issues to be addressed in that area. I do not support acts of property destruction or violence during protests. (And I do not know any teachers who do.) You are making an unfair generalization.
The teachers’ union should not have to pay for services, such as tutoring. Providing support services is the responsibility of the school district, state, feds–those who are financially responsible for public education. Unfortunately, these seem to be the first services cut when budgets get tight. And I can assure you that many teachers try to fill the void by providing such services without compensation before or after school hours.
Rather than constantly criticizing Oakland teachers, the great majority of whom do the best they can under the conditions they’re provided, why not siphon that energy into providing or organizing assistance for students yourself? This would be a much more positive and productive use of time.
May 4th, 2012 at 11:08 pm
Catherine,
You are right to assume I am a classroom teacher. I have a first grade class of twenty-eight students with diverse abilities. Several students in my class are receiving counseling services (starting before they entered my class) due mainly to emotional outbursts. I have a visually impaired student. My students range in ability from being advanced to being far below basic.
A support teacher assists (and helps provide materials for) my visually impaired student a few hours per week.
A resource specialist and speech therapist assist two students who are learning disabled for about two hours each. Other than that, it is up to me to provide support for students of all levels of ability in learning to read, write, master basic math skills, acquire basic knowledge of the first grade science and social studies curricula, and experience creative and performing arts. (We do have a P.E. prep teacher.) Please take a moment here to visualize the scenario I described.
Now, let me state clearly to you, no, I do not differentiate for my gifted students every day across all subjects I teach. It is impossible under the circumstances. Of course, gifted has a different meaning in first grade than it does in fourth grade, or middle or high school. Mine are basically advanced students who may test as gifted in a few years. Nonetheless, most Oakland teachers of any grade level face similar challenges to those I just mentioned, and some have even less support.
It is unfair for district officials or parents (and I am a parent of adult children who attended Oakland schools at various times, two of which were in GATE) to expect teachers to perform miracles under less than adequate conditions. Please look at the whole picture, and all that it would really take to accomplish what you would like to have seen happen for your children. Think about the time involved in planning, preparation, correcting, etc. And realize that elementary teachers are only provided 50 mins. of preparation time per week! (Unless their school has additional funding that can provide them with more.)
The best I have been able to do this year, in addition to my own individual and small group instruction (which is very difficult to accomplish with such an “active” class), is to recruit two parents and train them to assist students who need reading support a few hours per week. One of those parents also worked with small groups of advanced students, but she has not been able to come for several weeks. I appreciate their help greatly, but having parent volunteers is not as dependable as having an employed support person. I do provide more challenging work for my advanced students to complete independently, mainly in reading/writing. At times, in the past, I have coordinated programs for GATE/Advanced students after school or at lunch time.
Catherine, I don’t think you are vilifying teachers by wanting them to have met the needs of your sons. But I do think it is necessary to be realistic about how much support gifted students can receive in a typical Oakland classroom under the current circumstances.
If you know of some district with a student population similar to Oakland that has managed to successfully address this issue, please share what is being done.
May 4th, 2012 at 11:52 pm
Lets get real,
If I can volunteer to help, there is no reason your union can’t. I have been working in classrooms on my own time to fill the IT gaps, and help the children(and I have never moaned or whined about doing it). You are unable or unwilling to acknowledge that I have consistently said that most teachers are capable, some are great while others are practically worthless. I think the majority of teachers do just fine, it’s the ones who go through the motions that bother me. You are hopelessly biased in favor of a tattered and torn system, and will do or say anything to avoid necessary change. I guess it is to be expected as long as the checks keep coming in.
May 5th, 2012 at 7:34 am
I’m sorry. OEA CERTAINLY defends bad teachers. OEA defended a worthless teacher in our school this year, who transferred into a vacancy (dance of the lemons) and wrought havoc due to utter incompetence.
I wish the public stood up to this – what is especially scandalous, is that OEA is massively dishonest in its apparent commitment to social justice when OEA is in fact as bad as a corporate lobby.
Shame on you OEA. You serve narrow interests (and hose poor children in the process) and bully your members, and you pretend to be activists? By Any Means Necessary? Are you serious?
Makes me want to vomit.
May 5th, 2012 at 9:07 am
J.R.
I don’t know how you have drawn the conclusions you have from what I said in the posts above. I do not favor the current tattered and torn system, and made suggestions from my own classroom experience of how it can be fixed.
I’m glad you spend time volunteering, and that you acknowledge the good work that most teachers are doing. The teachers you describe as “worthless” are relatively few, and that’s why I resent the constant harping on “bad teachers.”
I also remember reading posts from you that acknowledge that many of our students come to school ill-prepared for success. And, if you’re volunteering in schools like mine, you know the challenges that arise from having such a student population.
I mentioned that many teachers DO volunteer to fill in the gaps by tutoring during off-duty time. However, it is not the responsibility of any union to PAY for services not rendered adequately by the employer, which is what you suggested in a previous post.
May 5th, 2012 at 11:21 am
Let’s get real,
I am tired of belaboring the point over and over again, so let me just end with “unless attitudes,priorities, and the “culture of mediocrity” change, this district will never rise above low performing. Parents, teachers, and admin are all responsible for the malaise of failure that is propagated by the mantra of “social and economic justice”. There are plenty of poor disadvantaged kids that make good lives for themselves through discipline hard work and tenacity. I have personally witnessed turnarounds at different schools in different districts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC77oMoaWZE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC77oMoaWZE
May 5th, 2012 at 2:49 pm
This is all rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
OUSD and such “schools” are going to collapse with sudden swiftness. It appears they will lose a block of their students fast enough that their budgets will have problems of the “meeting payroll” kind.
Think of it as a death spiral. Yes, there will be the dregs who are not acceptable and don’t want a real school. The continuation school kids.
Other than that, Charters are online, just like Amazon.Com. As goes “Best Buy” so goes the urban public school.
Brave New World!
May 5th, 2012 at 6:20 pm
J.R.
Once again you have drawn an erroneous conclusion from my statements. I was not trying to say that students who come to school ill-prepared cannot overcome obstacles and thrive.
My point is that they need a lot of extra support to do so, and that OUSD resources either don’t exist or are not being directed to provide that amount of support to all the students who need it. I’ve had success stories in my own classroom, but I also have stories of students who needed more than I could give them.
As for whole school turnarounds, most such schools enforce a strict discipline policy which I completely support. The teaching and learning time at schools would increase dramatically if stronger policies were put into effect in Oakland, and I have advocated for that to happen. Still waiting…
I fully respect what the educators at Frederick Douglass Academy (cited in your post) have attempted, but they, evidently, need more supports in place to sustain their success as well:
http://schools.nyc.gov/OA/SchoolReports/2009-10/Progress_Report_2010_HS_M499.pdf
Time to acknowledge what truly needs to happen, and get to work!
May 6th, 2012 at 6:57 am
What truly needs to happen is to separate the wheat from the chaff in American schools. We need to build community schools with outstanding teachers.
If a teacher can’t teach, the district needs to fire that teacher.
If a teacher needs support, the district needs to support that teacher.
If a teacher is getting remarkable results, the district needs to promote, bonus, exemplify and make happy that teacher.
If a principal can’t lead, get rid of the principal.
IT’S SIMPLE.
May 6th, 2012 at 12:12 pm
If post 63 were true, charter schools, which are largely non-union, would be outperforming other public schools. All studies of charter performance show that, as a group, charters are not showing any stronger results than other public schools, and some studies show charters as not doing as well as other publics. In general states with strong teacher unions outperform states where the unions are weak. Many posters here have a strong anti-union bias, but the facts do not support their positions.
May 6th, 2012 at 6:06 pm
Let’s Get Real:
I have been talking to my sons about what made first and third grades so special for them. (These are the grades in which the teachers differentiated work.) Their elementary school was a magnet school for students with Down’s Syndrome. I do not remember a year when my sons did not have a group of four Down’s Syndrome students in the class. The aide was often there, but when she was sick, it was often hours before an aide was found to come into the classroom. These students were still wearing pull-ups in first grade and the aide had to assist with restroom habits which left the teacher with three of the students and no aide several times during the day.
Here is what my boys remember: Ms. S in first grade pretested everything. Remember the 100 sight words. There was a pretest and if you got 9 out of 10 right on the pretest you didn’t take the test at the end of two weeks. Remember “Everybody Eats Rice?” That’s how we learned geography. Each family brought in rice from their country of origin. The student who brought the rice had to be able to point out the country on the globe, on a flat map and show the nearest body of water. Our reading was tested and we had those textbooks from the 50s and 60s at our grade level. Those books had stories, poetry, science and songs.
I remember the math that was pretested. Addition, subtraction, greater than, less than, equal to, skip counting was all pretested. Students who completed 90% or better on the pretest estimated how tall the vegetables in the planter would grow in a week, or a month. They also worked on tangrams – a set of 100 in which they kept track of their progress on a chart.
One of my sons who was a good reader and writer, wrote a story about a bird who made his own family by flying to all of the continents and gather a bird native to that country. He worked on this book and report while other students were learning to string together sentences. My younger son did a similar project with bears when he was in first grade. The student, teacher and parent all had to sign the contract. Students were not allowed to disturb others.
I asked about the planter – in lieu of an end of the year gift one year the parents got together and had two 10-foot planters made. The students measured the vegetables, brought in pumpkins and estimated the weight, seeds and circumference. Oh, first and third grades were the only years that my sons never, ever had work sheets for homework. They had a package of homework every week, but NEVER was there a worksheet.
The classes ranged from 24 – 28 and did not move to 33 – 34 until fourth grade. Both of these teachers allowed my sons to advance their learning more than a year in the year they had them. All of the other years at the school, my sons learned twice as much over the summer break as they did during the regular school year in ALL areas of academics.
I guess my question is that if these two teachers could do it, why can’t all teachers with five or more years of experience work toward the same thing?
While teachers complain about the textbooks and the workbooks and the training that goes along with them, teachers rely on them too much on these items and Lakeshore learning for classroom materials. Both of the teachers that differentiated used hands on materials from everyday life.
One assignment I remember particularly well had to do with walking in the neighborhood and collecting two each of three different kinds of seeds. The first set was glued in order of the size of the seed and the second set was glued in the order of the size of the plant the seed would grow to be. More advanced students named the plants and even more advanced student researched the botanical name.
Two things were also important: the principal, who is no longer at the school, reviewed the lesson plans for differentiation. Those teachers who differentiated were observed less often than other teachers. The current principal only requires differentiation down to the lowest levels – not even the least bit above grade level. The second thing is was Ms. S told me – it is horrid to have a bored, bright child in my room because the student will make her or his own interesting work and it will probably interrupt others. The second worse thing is when parents come in and complain because they have supported the school and their child is not learning anything, because you can’t really argue with them. Their child has a right to learn at school and I have a responsibility to teach every student. And some years it is easier than others.
May 6th, 2012 at 10:32 pm
@steven Charter high schools outperform OUSD high schools. That’s a fact.
May 6th, 2012 at 11:13 pm
Catherine, thank you for taking the time to point out specific examples of differentiation in your sons’ experience.
I don’t expect you to name the school, but I’m curious about what public school in Oakland was a magnet school for Down Syndrome students, had a class size of 33-34 fourth graders (the limit is supposed to be 31), and only had one aide for four DS students (unless they had no major behavior issues).
At any rate, some of the activities you describe involve the need for adequate planning time, supports, and resources to pull off, which are not available at all Oakland schools. Also, the general school climate must have been relatively free of disruption for it to be considered suitable for recruiting special needs students–another difference from many Oakland schools.
As to why the level of differentiation varied from classroom to classroom, I can only speculate since I’m not familiar with the school community. Possible factors, as I’m sure you have considered, are differences on the part of the teachers in the level of training and experience. Also, the make-up of a specific class can affect the teacher’s approach to instruction. A large number of distractible students can make it more difficult to differentiate.
But you are not describing a setting that sounds like there were a large number of distractible students. In fact, as I’m writing this, I’m realizing that there are wide differences in school cultures within Oakland–and, of course, between Oakland and other districts–depending on the student populations. It’s probably difficult for you to visualize a classroom setting where multiple disruptions may occur throughout the day. If you could, you would understand why differentiating across curriculum on a regular basis can be difficult to accomplish.
Because of pressure (high stakes testing) to boost the level of students who are functioning below level, that principal you mentioned is not alone in focusing on differentiating down.
A shift in education policy (which is not currently dictated by educators) must occur if we are to make sure that all schools are in a position to meet the needs of all students. This is something that parents and teachers alike should advocate for.
May 7th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Let’s Get Real:
Oakland has specified different schools for different needs. Last I knew Carl Munk and Joaquin Miller served students on the autism spectrum, Glenview served visually impaired students and so on.
When I talked to my sons teachers about why they would agree to large classes, they stated that many students leave during the year and many students arrive. It is easier to “take the hit” with a large class at the beginning of the year knowing they will not have to accept transfer students later in the year because their classes are full. I guess for high stakes testing it makes sense if you keep the student for the year you know what they know and have learned.
From a parent perspective – believe it or not – I would rather have 40 students in a class with a teacher who is able to differentiate for GATE and Highly motivated than to have a class of 20 with a teacher who does not or cannot differentiate for the upper performing students.
And to your questions about high stakes testing, yes, the teachers in first and third grades still had that pressure. One teacher was in her first five years and the other was in his fifth to tenth year. The first few years both teachers said that they had to put in 60 – 80 hours per week, but once the habits were in place and they could teach scholarly habits to students, it was easier.
Two interesting things: the group of students with Down’s Syndrome often needed to be reminded to be quiet, they had a different lesson plan, and so on. One of the students seemed to be very anxious with new people or routines in the class. About half or more of the class qualified for free and reduced price lunch.
Both of these teachers also taught from the opening bell to the ending bell. The first grade teacher picked up students about 5 minutes early on the playground. The second teacher left his door open and students came in on their own. As the morning bell rang students had backpacks away, homework in the upper right hand corner of their desks and were seated on the rug in their spaces. In third grade students turned in homework by subject sorted in different baskets. Students had jobs and one job was to put the third grade work in alphabetical order by last name.
In both of these classes students put their things away only after the last bell rang. All desks were required to be neat and students then went to get backpacks and leave. I found it odd, because all of the teachers who did not differentiate had two lines – one for boys and one for girls or line by student number. However, the differentiating teachers did not spend time on lines, cleaning up after class, putting up chairs – students had classroom jobs. It was a pain in the rear picking up the boys these years because they often were in class 10 – 20 minutes after school. I was frustrated – they were happy – no, satisfied and joyful, for the most part.
May 7th, 2012 at 9:08 pm
Thanks again for sharing, Catherine.