With the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers still negotiating a contract with the current administration of the School District of Philadelphia all chips are on the table and people are asking questions and pointing fingers. One of the most often-pointed issues is that of seniority, and it's one that comes with a host connected problems that are brought up. 

Those with narrow focuses often say that seniority is one of the biggest parts of the teacher's contract to be changed. After all - when looking at today's fiscal crisis, isn't it unfair that high-quality teachers with fewer years of experience are being let go when the older, more prone to sit-around-and-wait-for-a-paycheck teachers get to keep their jobs? This is an unfortunate dichotomy that has been set up as the grounds for any conversation of the issue. In reality, there are more people in between than can be properly counted.

Inherently related to this problem is that of teacher evaluation. If the idea that those hired more recently would be let go in a fiscal crisis (the so-called last in - first out rule) were to disappear, one would have to base hirings and firings on something. Enter: value-added modeling, a system in which teachers are rated on how much they raise their student's scores compared to similar student populations. Many proponents of ditching seniority (Philadelphia School Partnership and PennCAN to name two) point out that a system based on data is a better idea that one based on seniority in order to retain the high-quality teachers needed in the classroom. One need only read pieces by Gary Rubinstein (a public school teacher in NYC) to understand its faults. 

This graph here shows the value-added data for 13,000 teachers over two years. The x-axis represents scores from the 2008-2009 year and the y-axis represents scores from the 2009-2010 year. In theory, if "good" teachers stayed "good," then there would be a strong linear correlation. Unfortunately, as you can see here, there is nothing of the sort. It is graphs like this that make value-added modeling seriously suspect.

Seniority is also about more than just hiring and firing. In Philadelphia right now teachers are being shuffled around due to a process called "leveling" where the number of students who were supposed to show up at school is balanced with those who actually do. That shuffling is usually based on seniority - up until now. Now, "other factors" are being considered. What's interesting here is that I might agree with some of those factors. When teachers are moved or bumped from students they have great relationships with, I have serious issues. But, if it is a question about a more senior teacher being moved vs. a less senior teacher with similar populations, I would probably err to the side of the less senior teacher being moved.

It is obviously very complicated but one thing is fore sure: these policies are making the teacher profession seem more like a "job" than many want it to be. It's possible that the revolving door of the newbie educators could become a regular thing, jeopardizing our students due to lack of experience. I can only hope that any new policies presented involved actual teacher dialog to ensure buy-in and knowledge that we have to offer.

Over the past few weeks I have gained more confidence in my understanding of school systems and have begun to think about the larger issues affecting students across New York City. With that in mind, today I attended my first Union meeting of the Movement of Rank-and-file Educators (MORE) Caucus. This group is a part of the larger United Federation of Teachers (UFT) as a political party of sorts. Apparently, there are so many educators with differing views there have been six so-called "opposition" caucuses over the past few decades. Some, like New Action, have joined forces with the larger base called Unity, whereas others have fought tooth-and-nail and have had some success influencing policy. I find this all fascinating because I think this type of split is occurring in teacher unions across the country.

In Philadelphia there is a rising tide of teachers who are somewhat disgruntled by the actions being taken by the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers (PFT). Groups like Teachers Lead Philly and Teacher Action Group have formed to take a stance on various policies in the city in an attempt to affect change. While these groups are not exactly political parties as the caucuses in NYC seem to be, they are still fighting to change a system that has been very slow to change.

One major unfortunate comparison I have between the UFT's Unity Caucus and the PFT in general is the general meetings during which resolutions are voted on. The story in Philadelphia goes back to the Fall of 2009 when the contract was being decided and the official vote was very undemocratic. Instead of using the paper ballots to end the meeting, Jerry Jordan instead asked for "aye" and "nay" votes, declaring that the "ayes" had it. Only later were paper ballots counted but by that time so many people had left any opposition would have been useless. 

I was told today that similar issues take place at the UFT's Delegates Assembly where chapter leaders and delegates from each school come together to decide on things. Here, too, there are no paper ballots and yelling is the way to approve or disapprove of a resolution. This unfortunate and undemocratic method is now coming into question by groups like MORE and others. 

While I am unsure where I stand in all of the UFT politics currently, I definitely want to ensure proper democratic processes in the future. 

Last Thursday, New York State Education Commissioner angered parents and community members from NYC to Buffalo when he announced that the scheduled meetings "between members and the Commissioner of the State Education Department regarding the Common Core Initiative and its implementation in New York" would be cancelled for the near future. Citing an issue with the implementation on the part of the audience members, the commission decided to disallow any more meetings for fear of more "special interest groups" creating larger upheaval. 

It is unfortunate when a state, public entity decides to unilaterally remove a public forum meant to allow democracy to take place. At this forum there was time allotted for questions after the marathon 90-minute presentation on the Common Core; this was taken up by shouts and questions from the audience as to the validity of the Common Core in general. These protests are echoed in the news from Buffalo to NYC. In fact, people are now pushing for an end to the reign of John King:

What I find interesting is the comparison of this meeting to those I've attended of the School Reform Commission in Philadelphia: there have been numerous meetings filled with shouting and protesting that still took place and the commissioners pushed through. It seems that King does not have the kind of time to at least pretend to hear what parents and community members want to say.

I hope these outspoken community members continue their work and that someone listens to their pleas about how the Common Core has been misused and misrepresented in New York.

Tonight I was able to attend a wonderful lecture by Diane Ravitch in sharing her new book, Reign of Error. As part of the Brooklyn by the Book series, she came to speak about the variety of hoaxes that are being offered by the corporate reform movement currently and how to combat them. 

Ravitch offered a variety of stories of current policy gone awry. She was quite articulate and passionate in her explanation of how Race to the Top, a program created by the current US administration, is a worse version of the No Child Left Behind Act created by former President George W. Bush. She also referred to the failure of the LA Unified School District in its attempt to provide tablet computers for every child to the financial detriment of a large capital improvement fund. 

Probably the best thing she said the entire night, however, is summed up by this tweet: 

One of the best lessons of these lectures is that the successful school systems across the world are not trying to separate and identify the "best" and "worst" schools - they are trying to make sure every school has the equal opportunity so that their students can as well. 

I was very fortunate to attend this lecture and I hope more stop by during the rest of her tour.

If you have not seen this video produced by the Media Mobilizing Project yet, you need to. It documents the amazing struggle of parents, teachers, students, and the community against the issues in the School District of Philadelphia.

Big shoutouts to Samuel Reed III and Andrew Saltz - teachers like you make others want to fight.