Yesterday the School District of Philadelphia announced that they would be suspending seniority rules as well as other policies related to teacher time limitations imposed by the contract. Superintendent Hite defends this plan as one that will "help each and every student have the right teacher with the right skills." What goes by the wayside in this announcement is that fact that the District needs money in order to function and this is the only way they know how to get it: by removing protections for teachers. 

This move is not wholly surprising since the recent appointment of the new School Reform Commission chair, Bill Green. Notorious for his more bull-headed approach in these matters, Green fully supports the decision and believes it will help the dwindling number of students in Philadelphia public schools. 

In the meantime the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, the teacher's union in the city, explained how these efforts put contract negotiations thoroughly behind. The contract that expired in August 2013 has been continued to a point thus far but seemingly will be bulldozed come September 2014. The new Caucus of Working Educators put out a statement of its own, explaining how teachers will be less likely to take risks that will help students if administrators have free reign and control over their teachers.

It is truly unfortunate that a budget crisis is cause for separation and in-fighting. Instead of attacking each other, what if the SRC and the PFT were to work together on a mutual solution. The contract might be one way of doing that but right now it seems like there are other hands at work, guiding some of the decisions of the District leadership. Recently the Philadelphia School Partnership - a private, corporate-mind driven organization - organized $2.6 million in grants to local schools, one of which will go to the creation of a new public school in the city. While they mean well - and I actually know and like some of the people involved in its creation - it seems poorly timed that a new school would embody the Phoenix metaphor so clearly. 

In my time thus far in New York, it is difficult to watch the pendulum swing in the opposite direction as I feel a sense of emotional vacillation. Our new Chancellor and Mayor seem so focused on the idea of public schooling yet back in my hometown the corporate reformers are getting ready to gut the city school system. I can only hope something radical happens soon to push things back in the other direction.

I am consistently amazed at the wide variation in relationships I have with my students. A weeklong project was due today and so after school there were about 15 kids finishing up their work: some putting the finishing touches and asking for assistance while others were copying feverishly from their neighbors and hoping we teachers did not notice. Each student has different coping skills for these situations and their interactions with me are evidence of that. Today I had interactions with two of them who are probably on either side of the relational interaction spectrum.

The first student was a girl who is very attentive and curious and is constantly asking things of me. “I have a question” is probably the most frequent sentence starter she uses. These questions are deep and demonstrate that she is paying attention enough to know where she has a gap in knowledge. Sometimes they are silly and joking but more often than not they help her and the members of her table. Today she was finalizing the last few sections of her project and asked for a few specific pieces of assistance. It was pleasure to work with her as I knew we were both benefiting from the interaction.

The second was a boy who has been challenging me to develop my skill in passivity in the face of aggression. He often requires prompting to get started on his work and almost always refuses to accept any method of instruction other than direct teaching. He and I have gotten into a variety of discussions concerning his lateness and it has come to a point where he has actually begun to ignore me inside and outside of class. Some other students have noticed and wondered out loud to him, “Why are you being mean? Brian is just trying to help you.” He was working on his project with other teachers in the room because he had very little to show for himself. When I was consulted on the project by one of teachers, we discovered that he had not actually followed the directions and was writing a small lab report about a different investigation than he should have been. I attempted to offer assistance and he refused to acknowledge me.

It is so interesting to me how these relationships develop. Something in the life of the girl and the moment we began interacting caused us to continue to work well together. In contrast, the boy challenges me often this year and I have trouble understanding what his goal is in these situations. It has been difficult for me to treat them both equitably as the enjoyment I feel interacting with the girl causes me to gravitate towards her when most likely the boy needs more of my expertise to learn. This is one among many of the internal battles I face that has some kind of external outcome. I hope to learn from these experiences and gain more understanding of where my students come from so I can better teach them in years to come.

Yesterday marked the first day I have seen or heard of a different caucus within the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers (PFT). For decades since their founding there has been a group of individuals in control of the PFT and the collective bargaining rights of all its members. While that group has done a wonderful job of supporting and aiding teachers, nurses, non-teaching assistants (NTAs) across the city, there has been growing discontent in their lack of transparency and need for input from the membership. As a former member and activist within the PFT, I can attest to that. There is now a new group within the PFT attempting to affect change: The Caucus of Working Educators. I am glad to see their platform calls for more transparency from the union leadership and support for public education.

It would seem this idea of a group within a teacher's union is not new. As a member of New York's equivalent - the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) - I have learned more about what and how caucuses function. In this city there are two main groups: Unity-New Action and the Movement of Rank-and-file Educators (MORE) who have - on the one hand - been working together to benefit teachers all over New York and - on the other hand - competing for the leadership of the union. Each has a separate protocol they follow and wants theirs to be primary within the teacher's union. 

I think these up-and-coming groups are gaining strength and I look forward to how they influence their respective cities. MORE attempted to wrest some control away from Unity-New Action in the 2013 union elections but there was such low voter turnout that no change occurred. Perhaps they can be of more influence within the UFT meetings (that is, if they are called on by UFT president Michael Mulgrew).

In Philadelphia, I am hoping that those in the Caucus of Working Educators will push to change things in their union and make PFT president Jerry Jordan think more about how he is leading the membership.

I just attended one of the United Federation of Teacher's workshops on Violence Prevention this afternoon and was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the presentation. Instead of being rote lecture with me getting bored by the minute, the presenter was quite charismatic and drew on personal experiences (of participants as well) to get her point across. She did not read off the powerpoint slides and instead used them to augment what she was saying. Overall, it was an enjoyable presentation.

However, the topics discussed are not the most enjoyable to think about.

Over the past few years it seems that violence across schools has increased immensely. Nowadays it is fairly commonplace to hear a story about violence against a teacher, a student, a staff member, and more. Articles are written in the Huffington Post and school systems like Philadelphia are the focus of investigative reporting. These issues are no longer few and far between.

What is so unfortunate is that there is such a focus on CYA (cover your ass) that sometimes the "right" thing to do gets muddle in the policies that were created. 

At this workshop we were told of stories of teachers truly breaking rules or students being purposefully aggressive and violent and the punishments did not seem very restorative or consequential, mostly because the paperwork was not filed correctly. In one instance, a teacher was given a broken nose and arm while the student who performed the aggressive act was given a suspension for 10 days and was back in the same classroom. The teacher, meanwhile, had to have restorative surgery and go into early retirement. While suspension might not be the only answer, the idea that the child could go directly back to the classroom with little if no intervention or support meetings seems wrong to me.

Additionally, there was a discussion about underreported violence that makes it more difficult for a staff member to substantiate a need to remove a child from a certain settings. Perhaps a principal did not follow protocol but the new teacher does not know what that protocol should be - then if a repeat offender does something abhorrent, their punishment is not as meaningful because of lack of documentation. 

I truly hope that some of these policies are changed and reviewed by high quality educators - if we can get adults and children to really understand and follow meaningful policies, perhaps we can improve things more.

Yesterday I was lucky enough to be included in an article for the Penn Gazette entitled, Doomsday in the District, in which Trey Popp interviewed a variety of Penn alum on how they are influencing education in Philadelphia. I was flattered to be included and think Trey has done some wonderfully in depth reporting. If you want to find the section mentioning me, simply search for my name.

For those of us who graduated high school before 2005 we remember the SAT test as a grueling experience of alternating math and reading sections, including comparing words to make analogies, and selecting a variety of multiple-choice questions. The score received from the SAT (then out of 1600) was one of the big components of your college application and might make or break your chances for getting into some of the top institutions of higher learning. We had heard of the ACT test from the Midwest but few people took it seriously.

Since its switch in 2005 to include an essay section and other edits (including the removal of the analogies section) there has still been growing concern that the correlation of high test scores did not connect with achievement, but rather with income. The new President of the College Board, David Coleman, has been endeavoring to change that fact with the changes announced just yesterday. He is attempting to include more synthesis and reasoning-type questions to model the Common Core's focus and impress upon students the need to justify work instead of memorizing facts and figures. The math section will even include a piece that restricts the use of a calculator.

As Diane Ravitch points out in her blog, however, some organizations (like FairTest) find continued flaws in how these standardized test are being used as minimum markers for college acceptance. She mentions the fact that there are a growing number of schools that do not require the SAT scores to be sent and will not penalize students who haven't taken the exam. 

In spite of this, there are some organizations with noble goals that want to help those needing to take this test. The Khan Academy has developed a partnership to help students of low-income families get online assistance in preparation for the SAT. I still need to mention a criticism, however, as it is only accessible to those who have enough money for the Internet, either through computers or SmartPhones. Ideally, no test prep would be required and so we could remove the correlation altogether. 

I have been an outspoken critic of standardized tests my entire career. Even before I decided to become a teacher I wrote an essay in my junior year of high school entitled, The SAT: Assessment of Potential or Evaluation of Background, in which I criticized the test for connecting too closely to income. I don't think these tests are the way to go for the future, even with the shift Coleman is attempting with the College Board. I hope more schools realize that tests are a poor measure of student performance and get to know kids more on a social and emotional level before deciding whether to accept or reject them. 

In the meantime, I guess my score on the SAT will make more sense to my students...