Portland Public Schools Targets Teachers

By Portland Teacher (writing anonymously out of fear of reprisal)

Just months after angry parents, students, and teachers forced Portland Public Schools (PPS) officials to back down from closing several neighborhood schools, PPS has found a new target: teachers. 

Negotiations between the school district and Portland Association of Teachers (PAT) began this month with such enormous differences between their two proposals, that the local media is already raising the possibility of a strike next year.

Given the widespread attacks on teachers nationwide, the decimation of the public school system in cities like Philadelphia and Detroit, and the relative success of union-bashing in states like Wisconsin and Michigan, PPS evidently believes now is the time to seize as much control as it can.

District officials recently appropriated the language of the Chicago Teachers’ strike in an Orwellian letter to the community that claimed their proposal was “updating” the teachers’ contract to give “our students the education they deserve.” In particular they point out that their proposal removes work rules that “have prevented many high school students from taking eight classes.” This letter reveals that until parents pressured the district in recent weeks to add teaching positions in order to provide a full eight classes to students, the district originally hoped to simply force high school teachers to teach another class. Their contract offer would allow this because it eliminates all restrictions on teacher workload in the contract—including the limit of 180 students per high school teacher negotiated last year.

But how is eliminating a cap on the number of students in a teacher’s classes supposed to benefit kids? Do the math.  If, say, a history teacher assigns an essay to all of her 180 students and devotes just five minutes to reading and commenting on each of these—an impossible task, in itself—this would take exactly 15 hours of outside-of-class time. Or, say, a science teacher wants to spend 10 minutes talking to each student’s parent about how to best serve a child’s needs. At the 180-student limit, that the district hopes to eliminate, this would add an extra 30-hour workweek for that teacher.

And while the district hopes to erase parts of the contract that put any restraints on the amount of unpaid labor teachers do outside of the school day, they also want to increase the “official” teacher workday and reduce the time teachers have to get non-instructional work accomplished during that day. With language that could have been written in the 19^th century, the district’s proposal increases the official teacher workday from 7.5 hours to “generally” 8 hours. At the same time their offer cuts high school teacher planning and preparation time from 90 minutes to 60 minutes per day, a reduction of 2.5 hours per week. Does the district really believe that the education Portland students deserve is one where their teachers have little time to plan engaging curriculum, give students meaningful feedback, and develop individual relationships with them?

The Portland Association of Teachers’ proposal, on the other hand, recognizes that teachers’ working conditions are students’ learning conditions. PAT’s contract proposal asks the district to reduce class size and caseload over the next few years setting goals for 2018 that are based on national research. The proposal also calls on the district to “work with the Association, parent groups, student groups, business groups, City, County, Metro, and State elected officials to secure adequate funding to achieve these goals.”

Another part of the district’s offer the community should be concerned about is the removal of language that prevents teacher evaluations from being based on students’ standardized test scores. How can the school district claim to be fighting for the “education our students deserve,” while increasing the emphasis on flawed high-stakes tests? In fact, Portland students have recently launched a campaign to protest high-stakes standardized tests. Does the district think these students don’t understand what kind of education they deserve? In contrast, PAT’s proposal asserts that “standardized tests shall only be used in a manner supported by the test methodology and testing frequency” and that “standardized tests should only be one tool used for assessing student learning and growth.” 

The school district will also likely try to paint the union as self-interested because PAT is asking for cost-of-living raises that keep up with inflation. In its offer, the district wants a four-year wage freeze and a cap on district contributions to health insurance so all future costs pass directly on to educators. But is the education Portland students deserve one where their teachers find it hard to focus on teaching because they are worried about paying their bills?

The truth is that PPS’s initial contract offer is more about union busting than it is about providing students a quality education. This is why their proposal excludes temporary employees from the union, eradicates the role seniority plays in determining layoffs, gets rid of union members’ ability to grieve evaluations while removing restrictions on when principals must complete those evaluations, and eliminates the ability of the union to grieve discriminatory practices based on race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, and political activity.  In fact, the district’s initial offer deletes more than 30 pages from the teachers’ contract. According to the PAT, PPS’s proposal includes over 70 take-backs.  At a recent bargaining session, district spokesperson Brock Logan was clear about their intention to use the erasure of PAT contract language to vastly expand management’s rights while stomping on teachers’. According to Logan, “If the contract doesn’t specify it, management can do whatever they want.”

Fortunately, PAT is standing strong and genuinely attempting to advocate on behalf of students and parents in addition to teachers. As Susan Nielsen, writes in the Oregonian, “Their proposal reads less like a standard contract than an education manifesto written by your favorite teacher. We want smaller class sizes, the union says in a six-page preamble. We want more electives for kids! We want every child to have access to a full curriculum that includes music, art, PE, world languages and staffed libraries. We want less time spent on endless standardized testing and more time spent developing the whole child.”

The PAT preamble titled “The Schools Portland Students Deserve,” is an intentional effort to incorporate the inspiring example of the recent Chicago Teachers’ Union fight into the union’s bargaining proposal. The preamble attempts to codify the spirit of the recent school closure fight into the teachers’ contract demanding “priority shall be placed on maintaining enrollment in neighborhood schools instead of school closure” and that “a school closure due to under-enrollment is a last resort and shall only be done in the most extreme circumstances.” 

In one of the boldest sections of the preamble, PAT flips the script on “accountability” in education by demanding that administrators, not just teachers, be held accountable. They ask for “creating a mentoring/feedback program for administrators” that includes “feedback surveys from students, parents, professional educators and mentor administrators.”

The preamble also calls for a coalition of parents, students, and other supporters of public education to push back against reforms that limit curriculum and wrap-around services and to work to find new sources of revenue that restore electives and services and lower class sizes.

Such a coalition will be needed now if there is any hope that the union’s vision of the schools Portland students deserve wins out over the district’s. Just last year three Oregon Education Association locals—two just east of Portland, were forced to strike by districts that used the economic crisis as an excuse to decimate teacher contracts.  If those struggles are any indication of the battle ahead, the PAT will need all the support it can get. Representing nearly 3,000 teachers, the PAT is the largest teacher local in Oregon and its fate will determine the tide of education reform in the region.

State Testing: Educational Growth Model Defies Logic

-->

by Allen Koshewa

Education is under attack again.  The state has ensured that some schools will once again be labeled failures, thanks to the new categories it has created, its distorted definitions of success, and its continued use of tests to punish rather than to inform instruction. 

 It will come as no surprise to most people that the state is using students’ scores on the OAKS  (Oregon Assessment of Knowledge and Skills) in reading and math as the sole determinant of educational growth.   Under the new system, implemented last fall, some schools have been labeled as “model” schools, “focus” schools, or “priority” schools while other schools have not been labeled at all.  Since the new labels only apply to Title I schools (in which the majority of students come from poverty), schools in higher-income areas are immune to the scrutiny and sanctions of schools labeled focus and priority.

 State number crunchers have come up with a new formula to establish what they are calling a “growth model,” which will determine the label a school gets (or doesn’t get).  In a travesty of equity, students who scored the lowest scores last year are expected to improve the most.  For example, students with low scores must demonstrate up to three years of growth (according to how OAKS scores are analyzed) to meet the “growth target” the state has established for them, whereas some students with higher 2012 scores only need to demonstrate half a year’s growth after one year.  This disparity of expectations will probably increase the achievement gap, rather than close it.

As a fourth/fifth grade teacher, I have several students who began the year stumbling through simple picture books who now can read chapter books with confidence.  On the OAKS test, they showed what is deemed the equivalent of two to three years of improvement, yet they were demoralized when they saw their scores and realized they had not quite met the benchmark, still required as one component of the state’s expectations for focus and priority school. 

Highly capable students are also getting the short end of the stick.  Those who attained a designation of “exceed” in 2012 can make a higher score and maintain their “exceed” status, yet still not meet “target growth.”

  

Another problem is the way the state is comparing students’ scores with those of other students across the state.  Students who live in poverty are being compared to students from high socioeconomic backgrounds.  English language learners are being compared to native English speakers.  In short, this is NOT an individual growth model.  Although there is no common agreement about what constitutes a good growth model, the state has implemented an inequitable one and has failed to logically articulate its rationale.

To make matters worse, exactly fifteen percent of schools will continue to be labeled “focus” and “priority.”  This means that no matter how much all students in the state improve, fifteen percent of our schools will be construed as failing schools. 

 It is clear that the standardized tests, along with the ludicrously unfair “growth model” the state has invented, will continue to ensure that students and schools are framed as failures.

Until a large number of students and parents opt out of these tests, the tests will continue to demonize children and schools.

Keeping Your Child's Data Safe and Private

Former Beaverton school board member, parent, electrical engineer, and member of Oregon Save Our Schools, Lisa Shultz (purple sweater, far left), testified today to the House Education Committee in Salem regarding HB 2666: Data Privacy. 

Lisa has been following the escalation of the collection, sharing, and selling of our children's and teachers' data that comes from our schools and their high-stakes standardized test results.  Why should outside third parties have access to our children's data?  What if there is a security breach that results in identity theft?  Who is to be held accountable and how can we prevent this from happening so we can keep our children's school records safe?

Read her complete testimony here. 

Read more about the fight to protect our children from the profiteers who see to make money off of our children's education.

The Rebellion Against Testing: A Q&A with Jesse Hagopian

Jesse Hagopian is a leader in the group Social Equality Educators focused on social justice unionism within the Seattle Teachers Association (www.socialequalityeducators.org). He has written many articles on education reform. He co-wrote the chapter “Teachers’ Union and Social Justice” for the book Education and Capitalism Struggles for Learning and Liberation (www.haymarketbooks.org/pb/education-and-capitalism). Jesse teaches social studies in Seattle at Garfield High School and is one of many teachers boycotting the MAP Test. I had the opportunity to ask Jesse questions about the role of Social Equality Educators and the increased solidarity for the MAP Test Boycott. Jesse is pictured above with his right hand raised wearing a baseball hat at a MAP Test Boycott Rally.

Why are educators at Garfield High School boycotting the MAP test?

Quoted from Jesse’s Op-ed in The Seattle Times Why Garfield teachers boycotted the MAP test

http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2020158085_jessehagopianopedxml.html

“Seattle’s ninth- and 10th-grade students already take five state-required standardized tests, with 11th- and 12th-graders taking three. Seattle Public Schools staff admitted to a Garfield teacher the MAP test is not valid at the high-school level, because the margin of error is greater than expected gains.

In addition, teachers are forbidden to see contents of the MAP test so they can’t prepare students. Teachers who have looked over the shoulders of students taking the test can tell you that it asks questions students are not expected by state standards to learn until later grades.

This test especially hurts students receiving extra academic support — English-language learners and those enrolled in special education. These are the kids who lose the most each time they waste five hours on the test. Our computer labs are commandeered for weeks when the MAP is on, so students working on research projects can’t get near them. The students without home computers are hurt the most.

Students don’t take the MAP seriously because they know their scores don’t factor into their grades or graduation status. They approach it less seriously each time they take it, so their scores decline. Our district uses MAP scores in teacher evaluations, even though the MAP company recommends against using it to evaluate teacher effectiveness and it’s not mandated in our union contract.”
  -->

How did the teachers at Garfield become unified and agree to boycott the MAP assessment?

JESSE: It started with one teacher at Garfield wanting to talk with me as the building union rep. I figured it was just about a normal everyday union concern. It turned out this teacher had been talking with a few other teachers questioning the validity of the MAP test. The teacher wanted to know what would happen if they didn’t administer the MAP test. We talked about how in order for this to be a more powerful action we needed a unified effort with a bigger group of teachers. So we first meet together with all the teachers in the tested areas and had a conversation. Then we called an all staff meeting where we talked about consequences such as insubordination and debated the collective action of not administering the MAP test. The moment that really turned the debate was when one teacher got up and said that the test would label them as a bad teacher and the students as failures. The teacher explained that they would rather be known for standing up against something that they knew was wrong instead of sitting back and being labeled a failure. Later the staff took a vote and unanimously voted to not administer the MAP assessment.

The boycott has gotten national attention, how have Garfield teachers and the overall message kept up the momentum/organizing efforts?

JESSE: It has taken a huge effort and a lot of coordination to keep the boycott going. There are basic tasks that have to get done: talking with the media, parent outreach, website development, other schools outreach, etc. We started by electing a five person steering committee to make decisions quickly and bring proposals to the larger group. We created committees around research, parent outreach, other schools outreach, solidarity, etc. There are now five schools participating in the boycott Ballard High School, The Center School, Chief Sealth International High School, Garfield High School and Orca K-8 School. We have a citywide boycott committee with representatives from the various schools. They are also broken up into sub committees. One of the committees is working on putting forward an alternative assessment proposal using current research. A dozen schools in the area have sent statements of solidarity. There have been different national days of action and support from educators and education activists around the nation.

It sounds to me like what has to done to prepare for a strike.

JESSE: Yes, it is a similar action in the sense that it is a testing strike and we are refusing our labor. It is slightly different in approach teachers are the ones self-organizing along with support from our unions.

What has been the role of a group like Social Equality Educators (SEE) in the boycott?

JESSE: SEE has played a critical role in the boycott. The main teachers that came together against the MAP test were SEE teachers. The schools that have joined the boycott all have SEE leaders in their buildings. They have been instrumental in holding meetings in their buildings, meetings with the PTAs, and creating resolutions. SEE had a group that was already unified and had organizing skills that have played out in the boycott.

How do you see the Garfield teachers “Scrap the MAP” boycott influencing what is happening in education today?

JESSE: What the boycott has raised is just how little teachers are consulted or actually never consulted about what is happening in our schools. We should be the first asked about our schools. What types of tests, interventions, or wrap around services do our students need? The answers should come from the teachers, parents, and students. If given the opportunity, we as educators have ideas and could put forward a plan to improve our schools.  We are not asked to be a part of the dialogue. Instead billionaires are asked and they put forward plans that are for privatizing education.

What teachers/union leaders or movements do you view as influencing public education in a constructive way?

JESSE: We have seen how teachers can push to shape the conversation. Look at how the Chicago Teachers Union went on strike demanding better schools for their students. Another group that inspired us here in Seattle are the Tacoma teachers that went on strike. They were even threatened with an injunction, but continued to stay out on strike until their demands were meant. We can look to these recent actions demonstrating how to assert our voices through collective action, and not just be heard, but also shape the outcomes.

Obviously high stakes testing is one, but what other main challenges do you see educators facing today? What are some ways educators can overcome those challenges?

JESSE: The biggest challenge is for educators to find their voice and use that voice in what is happening in education today. We are the ones who should be shaping the conversation about what is happening in our schools. This can happen when we join together to make sure our voice is heard. We can do this by joining groups like Social Equality Educators, or others working for social justice in our schools. We should be the leaders in education. We can be the leaders in education if we use our ability to unite together and make ourselves heard.

How have you seen students question their educational experience through the boycott of high stakes tests?

JESSE: Students are also questioning the value of these high stakes assessments. Our student government and the PTSA voted in support of the boycott. Student groups in Portland, Oregon and Providence, Rhode Island created their own boycott against standardized tests. Students in Colorado are walking out this week against high stakes tests. This is just the beginning of a larger push back against such privatization reforms that come from billionaires and corporate reformers. The struggle highlights a bigger problem of privatization and a need for teachers to assert their voice. 

Jesse will be in Portland for a panel about high stakes testing. Saturday, March 16^th at 4pm.

Facebook event page: https://www.facebook.com/events/583543101656173/584830364860780/

Other resources about the Seattle MAP Boycott:

http://scrapthemap.wordpress.com/blog/

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/District_Dossier/2013/02/the_seattle_boycott_is_not_abo.html

http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2020158085_jessehagopianopedxml.html

http://www.socialequalityeducators.org/

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/1/29/seattles_teacher_uprising_high_school_faculty  
 

How Did This Happen? The History of Oregon's Corporate-Driven Education Policy Model

In January, Tom Olson, of Oregon Save Our Schools, put his research together to explain and summarize how Oregon's corporate education reform model came into being.  The education reform plan was created swiftly with hand-picked voices and strategists, and the public's concerns and input were ignored.  Hopefully, from reading this, Oregonians will realize that we are on the wrong path and demand changes to turn this around into a different and improved model that not only supports a well-rounded and quality-funded education plan but also includes the voices of teachers, parents, students, and community members.

HB 2665 and 2867: Time to Face Poverty in Education

Today the House Education Committee listened to testimony around the effects of poverty in education with HB 2665 and HB 2867.  Thanks to poverty expert Donna Beegle, Rep. Lew Frederick; and Steve Buel, Tom Olson, and Rex Hagans of Oregon Save Our Schools in providing excellent testimony in support of addressing the effects of poverty in our schools.  Here is a link to the audio testimony for the record.

HB 2664: Review Costs and Impacts of High-Stakes Standardized Tests

Great video testimony by Oregon State Representative Lew Frederick, teachers, students, and parents about supporting HB 2664 in Oregon, which reviews the impact of high-stakes testing on our public education system.  Thanks to all who attended and spoke up to speak the truth!