Testimony of Janella Hinds before the CCEC Hearing on Empowerment Schools: March 5, 2007

Mar 5, 2007 1:32 PM

Good afternoon. My name is Janella Hinds. I am special representative for empowerment schools of the United Federation of Teachers. On behalf of UFT President Randi Weingarten, I want to thank Chairman Robert Jackson and the committee for the opportunity to testify on the successes and failures of Empowerment Schools.

             In the time I have, I will lay out an analysis of the program’s strengths and weaknesses. I will then be followed by classroom teachers who will share their experiences in these schools. We are also including in our written testimony comments by a teacher who prefers to remain anonymous.

            As has been discussed, the Empowerment Schools are an expansion of the Autonomy Zone, the group of 48 schools that participated in a two-year pilot program. The UFT, by and large, supported the creativity expressed in the Autonomy Zone. Our feelings about Empowerment Schools, however—and one in every four city schools is now “empowerment”—are mixed.

            The UFT knows that schools work when teachers have a voice.  In those Empowerment schools where collaboration between teachers, parents and administrators takes place, students are thriving.  Yet it is still a work in progress, a Beta version if you will, complete with promising aspects and annoying bugs.

            Here are some positive aspects of Empowerment:

• Schools have greater flexibility to design their own education plans. This affords those directly accountable for student achievement the ability to develop educational programs tailored to the academic needs of their students, rather than applying a cookie cutter approach to each school. 

• Principals have additional funding and more discretion on budget and hiring, enabling a collaborative school community to make financial decisions that reflect the needs of the students at that school.

• These schools function under the UFT contract, which remains in full force. Teachers are protected by the same system of union representation that they have always had. Each principal may have what is called “bounded autonomy” — but such autonomy does not mean that the principal is empowered to violate the contract or state or city statutes.

            There are certainly successes in Empowerment Schools.  There continue, however, to be several striking concerns:

• The requirement that principals consult their school communities before signing the performance agreements was not uniformly obeyed. Administrators of numerous Empowerment Schools also refuse to share information with the entire school community.  The lack of consultation and refusal to share information has left teachers, parents, and students in many schools in the dark about impending changes and unprepared for meaningful conversations about school policy.

• The series of assessments required in each Empowerment School is meant to increase data-driven instruction. It doesn’t. Instead it multiplies pressures on educators to privilege test preparation and limit students’ attention to actual content.  Results of the assessments— the majority of which are provided by contract with Princeton Review and Kaplan—come in too late in a number of schools to serve as guideposts for how well students are learning. In addition, administering the tests in six-week increments is overkill.

• Many students required to receive mandated services are not getting them. The union is investigating reports that the mandates listed on Individualized Education Plans (IEPs) for special education students and the needs of English Language Learners are not being met— particularly that small self-contained classes are giving way to team teaching and inclusion classes. We have also received allegations that principals are asking teachers and psychologists to change IEPs in order to stretch school dollars;

• The Integrated Service Center, intended to merge the services of the Regional Operations Center and the Regional Learning Center, has undergone three disruptive changes in leadership since September, making it difficult to get such matters as suspensions, leaves of absence and  sabbaticals resolved.

• The change toward the network structure has resulted in fewer resources available on the superintendents’ level to support instruction. New teacher induction and mentoring are absent in many Empowerment schools, leaving school personnel isolated, unsupported, and disengaged. The shift to networks has also resulted in the creation of self-selected groups that often do not convene meetings or workshops that allow for the opportunity to engage with fellow teachers, paraprofessionals, secretaries, and other school related personnel—a practice that was common under the regional structure.

• The term “Empowerment” has left some administrators with the impression that they are free to make unilateral decisions. Some administrators have made comments to that effect, resulting in an increase in tension between administrators and teachers as well as the implementation of practices that have violated the contract and long-standing positive relationships.

            The Department of Education has proclaimed this program “mission accomplished,” but that is premature. There is no evidence that Empowerment works for enough of the students attending the 322 schools in question.  The DOE must devote the time and effort necessary to improve Empowerment before expanding it. That means fully developing plans through consultation prior to implementation. It means listening to teachers and other educators in order to compile the information needed to really work the kinks out. 

            The UFT supports school reform.  And Empowerment offers opportunities for positive reform that improve student achievement. By including teachers and other stakeholders in decision making process, Empowerment can do that. 

            Now, you will hear from our teachers. They will tell you first hand why some Empowerment schools work well, and why others need additional support. 

            Thank you.

#

Teachers Testimony

Testimony of Anonymous

Fearing that the DOE has vindictive tendencies, I have chosen to submit my testimony in writing rather than attend the hearings.

Certainly, the empowerment zone was enticing--what staff would not welcome both the freedom and the responsibility it promised.  But early on, it became clear that the DOE wanted to retain control of the school's most critical functions, including instruction and curriculum, through its Accountability Office. Rather than teaching and learning being the focus of the DOE, data, testing, and test-prep have become the driving force. 

I have been teaching mathematics in a New York City high school for nine years.   Although my school is in the Empowerment zone, it has experienced increasingly greater and greater demands for paperwork and written justification of what we do.  Senior teachers and our principal have said that we now have more paperwork than at anytime they can remember.  Teachers are expected to assume more and more clerical duties—with increased accountability, we have become data clerks for the DOE with no time specifically allotted (or compensated) for this task.

Furthermore, our "empowered" school is never consulted about anything the DOE demands.  For example:

·        the Empowerment schools were told to administer interim assessments every six weeks, but principals were told to decide how to do this over the summer, when they could not consult with staff and were forced to make critical decisions that would have long-term effects on curriculum and instruction.  The teachers, who should have had the most input on such an important decision, were excluded from the process and not informed until they had returned to school in the fall.

·        The DOE selected two vendors as the "default" for their interim assessment pilot without ever consulting with the teachers and staff. The vendors they chose, Princeton Review and NWEA, were complete failures and we are told will not be used again.  True to form, the DOE has already issued an RFP for next year's vendors. Deciding to forego a pilot phase, it again will require all 1400 schools to use the vendor(s) they select.

Some schools were able to propose a Design Your Own (DYO) interim assessment.  However, any school that applied on its own, not with a group of schools, was denied.  A number of groups were given permission to design their own assessments, but they have been held to a much higher standard than the default vendors, which received much more money per school than the schools using DYOs.

Although the DOE claims that schools are "empowered" because they receive increases in their budget, what has not been part of the public record is that schools will have to spend that money on services that they formerly received without charge--such basic services as summer school, the arts, and assistance with budgets.  Next year, each school in the Empowerment Zone will be required to allocate $25,000 of its budget for administrative services, regardless of the size of the school and its budget. 

Here are recommendations from someone who works with children day after day in the classroom:

• Permit real empowerment. Allow educators to design and implement curriculum and assessments that respond to the needs of their students.   Support those groups that have a vision and commitment to an instructional framework.

• Don’t limit assessments to tests.  Other valid forms of assessment can gather much more information about what a student has learned while providing additional learning experiences for students—oral reports, written analysis, interviewing, hands-on science experiments, project-based learning, presentations and exhibitions.

• Allow those schools that have already proven their success (higher attendance rates, higher graduation rates, success in college) to continue doing what they do best.  Do not impose bureaucratic policies that will only burden teachers with unnecessary paperwork and worse.  As Tom Sobol has written, "The goal is quality, not uniformity."

The current administration is based on three "pillars"--leadership, empowerment, and accountability.  It's time to resurrect instruction, curriculum, and learning. 

 Testimony of Carol Griffin

My name is Carol Griffin.  I teach second grade teacher at PS 71, a pre-K-to-7 school in the Bronx.  I am also the UFT chapter leader.  I have taught at the school since 1969, and can state with certainty that PS 71 is and has always been a high-functioning school, with strong commitments from staff, parents, local business leaders and community activists.  (In fact, your colleague, Councilman James Vacca, is a graduate of the school.)  Today, PS 71 is culturally and economically diverse, serving some 1,500 students in northeast Bronx.  One of our key strengths remains having parents and the community actively involved in all aspects of school life.  It is also significant that many staff members, including a number of our 112 UFT members and one assistant principal, reside in the community.

 

My view of the success of the empowerment experiment at PS 71 is mixed.  Some of the school community, including members of the administration, the UFT, and parents were initially reluctant to embrace empowerment or fully support the principal's decision to apply for Empowerment Zone status.  But, with at least half of our school's families subsisting at the poverty level—a sizable

proportion that is still too low to qualify for Title 1 funding—the opportunity to receive additional funding persuaded us to give the empowerment program a chance. The added funding was particularly important because we are in the second year of expanding to eighth grade.

Also persuasive was the principal's argument that autonomy would mean greater flexibility in decision-making regarding scheduling, program selections and certain curriculum mandates.  Just one example:  at the principal's request, our UFT members approved a school-based option that shifted a professional development day originally scheduled for June on to October.  This shift allowed the staff to receive a full day of instruction for implementation of a new math program at a more appropriate time--the beginning of the school year.

As with every new experience, there have been a few differences of opinion.  For example, the scheduling initiated by the principal caused some concern among some parents and teachers.  The official schedule for sixth and seventh graders runs from 9:00 AM to 3:50 PM.  There is NO formal lunch period; the children have a thirty-minute break to eat lunch in the classrooms.

Here’s a suggestion for improvement: both the principal and the union agree that we would benefit from more support from the empowerment network leaders, and perhaps some revision on how the network style of organization is structured.  While we realize that this system is in transition, we believe that such external support between the network staff and all community constituents -- including the UFT-- would enable us to better embrace the opportunities offered by the empowerment philosophy and vision.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.  It is just this sort of meaningful collaboration among city officials, the UFT, administrators and parents that will lead to the educational excellence that our children deserve.

#

Testimony of Kimberly Tai

My name is Kimberly Tai. I teach science and physical education at the Accion Academy in the Bronx. We are a new small middle school, serving students from 6th-to–8th grade in the Bronx, and September saw us in a new school building.  Our school philosophy is explained in our name and acronym A.C.C.I.Ò.N, which stands for Achievement, Community, Consciousness, Integrity and Opportunity Now

When the Empowerment Idea was first floated, we were excited about how much more flexibility we could have as a school to meet our students’ needs by using  better-suited resources. We also thought we could building a strong relationship between our school and its surroundings. Unfortunately we were moved into an Elementary School building where the physical space is inappropriate for our students.  We have a separate main entrance, one that was originally designed for garbage disposal. Our gymnasium is actually two small elementary classrooms that were combined; as a result it is shaped in a rectangle. But with Empowerment on our side, we thought that we might be able to find a better place for our students where we can call home.  However, Empowerment was not on our side.

We feel like our concerns are not being heard, and that’s a situation that is no different from how things used to be pre-Empowerment. We were even told that our budget was getting cut and we were faced with excessing a teacher in November.  Mentors are still not in our school to support the new teachers.  We have our Arts program located on a cart and our Social Studies teacher runs from classroom to classroom.  Our network leader rarely comes to the school, and when she does show up, she speaks only to our principal and never asks teachers how we were doing.  We need more supports, and Empowerment isn’t helping us get that support.

Our first year teachers get no support from Empowerment and are afraid to even speak up. Not a good situation for retaining new teachers. Nor is the amount of collaboration noteworthy. Our principal has been in my classroom just three times this whole year. Our schedule does not allow either for ELA team meetings or 6th grade meetings. In a small school of just 200 kids, it should be easy to collaborate. It’s not happening. We still have loads of paperwork to document requirements, and we still do without the supports we need.

I even worked closely with my principal in trying to figure out what to do to make sure that we don’t rattle our student’s success as well as their faith in public education.   We thought we could rely on the Empowerment’s philosophy.  However, the philosophy of Empowerment also says, “you are on your own.”

The bottom line: If you have a leader who truly empowers teachers, students and parents to build and foster a culture of success, then empowerment works. If not, you’ve got the same old system. Why further empower bad leaders?     

#

Testimony of Mark Otto

My name is Mark Otto, and I teach special education at The Facing History School, an Empowerment School on midtown’s far West Side.  We’re a great example of success, and that success is due in large measure to the leadership of our principal, Gillian Smith.  Not only are teachers and staff consulted when decisions in the school are made but we are active participants with our principal on the committees that make the decisions that best serve the needs of our students and staff.  I have worked both in suburban New Jersey schools and in inner-city Los Angeles and I have never been treated with such professional respect as I am now under Gillian Smith’s leadership.  I say this because I believe that the success of Empowerment Schools is largely dependent on the character and vision of the principal in each school. 

Between the principal’s leadership and the freedom that comes with being an Empowerment school, the staff is enabled to design and effectively implement rigorous, innovative, interdisciplinary, and culturally relevant curriculum that engages all of our students.  Our core courses require students to complete projects that show their mastery of skills and content.  For example, students in forensics must evaluate an elaborately arranged crime scene, while math students use math skills to design floor plans and bridges, and social studies compare human rights in various countries and engage in debates about the current crisis in Darfur. There are many other examples I can give, too, that explain why the staff appreciates both the flexibility and the guidance offered to us in designing curriculum. Being an empowerment school has allowed us to create the exact curriculum to meet the needs of our students rather than implement a district or region-wide initiative with little or no relevance for them.

We also benefit from the freedom to integrate more resources from outside organizations.  Beginning with our lead partner, Facing History and Ourselves, the school maintains a number of partnerships with organizations that provide additional resources to the school.   A partnership with Working Playground provides art studio classes to students, as well as an arts integration program that pairs teaching artists with core subject teachers, allowing students to express the new knowledge they have gained through visual art, poetry, and video.  We work with Educators for Social Responsibility on an advisory curriculum that involves students in the difficult work of becoming a community of learners that is responsible to each other.  Facing History and Ourselves provides curricular support, volunteers who help students one-on-one with reading, writing, and math skills, and an incredible speaker series that has brought outstanding leaders to the school.

And we have the freedom to create a schedule that enables us to incorporate all of the necessary classes in time slots that we feel are most effective.  We have many small classes and we use collaborative team teaching, tutors, and volunteers to give all students, not just those with learning differences, additional support.  Teachers have office hours at lunch and after school to meet with students individually.  Each student has an advisor and advisory meets four times a week.  Advisors make regular contact with students’ families.   Our principal understands that teachers need time during the school day to meet with their departments in order to plan lessons together.  Without the ability to create a schedule that allows for this “teacher time” we would be forced, like many other teachers around the city, to use our own time outside of school hours which puts undue stress on teachers.  We are thankful to have a leader who understands us and respects our time as educators.

In closing, let me restate my belief that Empowerment schools can only work if they have a leader with a vision for something new, something better and the courage to make changes against insurmountable odds.  We are lucky to have that kind of leader.

Thank you.

#

Testimony of Valerie Dudley.

My name is Valerie Dudley. I am a teacher at Manhattan’s Kappa II School and the UFT chapter leader. I’m going to talk about the downside of our becoming an Empowerment School. 

Put simply, the downside to our school becoming an empowerment school and our principal empowered to make all of the decisions has been a collapse of communication between our administrator and the teachers.  Two of the biggest problems flowing from that collapse have been retreats in the level of safety and a decline in the commitment to professional development. 

The safety of our school is a major concern for the teachers at Kappa II. There has been no safety training for the staff, no protocol for parents visiting the school and no SAVE room.  The lack of a visitors’ protocol has lead to parents being able to confront teachers as well as students during school hours in situations that can easily escalate. One parent-student confrontation led to security being called and the boy's parents also called NYPD.  In fact, just a few days ago, the principal  was verbally assaulted by a parent.

A SAVE room has still not been established at our school in spite of the fact that it is required by law. Students ejected from classes were routinely sitting in the hallway or the main office and were oftentimes unsupervised.  Once a grievance was filed, the principal's solution was that her office would function as the SAVE room as well as the coaches' room.

Substituting the principal’s office for a SAVE room is no solution. The children are still unsupervised, and left either to sleep or socialize in her office. No learning takes place in the room, as it should. If our principal was still in the region and answerable to a regional representative, rather than "empowered," this situation could possibly be rectified and a SAVE room teacher could be hired.

Professional development is another concern. Funds available for professional development are utilized inequitably and capriciously. The principal decided to send one ELA teacher and the ELA coach to a workshop in Atlanta for four days.  The two remaining ELA teachers were not invited, despite the fact that the Para and the principal attended. The information they received at the workshop has still not been disseminated to the ELA teachers who were no allowed to attend. 

Another example of a professional development inequity: the science teachers have yet to attend even one professional development workshop, yet the math teachers are about to attend their second out-of-town workshop, one that will last for three days.

We have a good staff at Kappa II, and we want to teach. It is unfortunate that we do not have a leader who is able to support our students by effectively supporting the staff.

Thank you, and I look forward to any questions.

#

Testimony of Steve Quester

My name is Steve Quester, and I’m a second-grade teacher and UFT chapter leader at The Children’s School in Brooklyn. We’re a collaborative team-teaching elementary school designed both for children with special needs and typically developing children. I’ve been a city public school teacher since 1990, and a staff member with The Children’s School since 1994.

I think the empowerment model works at our school, but then so did the previous system of governance. For us, it’s been a wash. Here’s why.

I’m going to start with a syllogism: good schools work well.  Our school, since its founding in 1992, has had a strong partnership between administration and faculty.  That’s why empowerment has worked well in our school, and why regional administration (and before that, district administration) also worked well at our school.  Student outcomes, staff retention, and family satisfaction have been exemplary under all three structures.

Yes, there are some aspects of empowerment that are an improvement over regional administration.  We teachers now choose the professional development that is aligned to our own needs as learners, rather than being ordered by regional staff to show up at workshops we do not want or need.  We’ve worked with the other schools in our network and with the Teachers College Reading and Writing Project to design rigorous interim assessments precisely aligned to balanced literacy as it is practiced in New York City, rather than having to administer commercially produced assessments that waste our students’ time and our own.  And having a bit more discretionary funding has allowed us to hire additional staff to implement an even richer program in academics, technology, and the arts.

But by and large, we’re the same school we were under regional and district administration.  We have a principal and assistant principals who trust and respect teachers, paras, and related service providers; they also hold us to high standards.  The result is that teachers, paras, and related service providers in our school trust and respect children, and hold them to high standards.  That’s why I say that it’s not ultimately about which management structure the Department of Education picks.  It’s about having a chancellor and a staff at Tweed who respect our skills and our input and treat educators the way our principal treats his faculty. Without that, schools cannot succeed.

Thank you.

#

Testimony of Kerry Dowling

My name is Kerry Dowling. I am the UFT chapter leader and a resource room teacher at Manhattan’s Beacon High School. This is my 17th year working for the DOE. I have worked and can speak from my experience in Districts 19, 79, Region 10, and the Empowerment schools.

The benefit of being in an empowerment school is that our staff, in collaboration with the administration, has had a chance to really work together to set goals, plan curriculum and design assessments.   We design our own professional development based on the needs of the students and of staff building, and have four areas of focus.  These are advisory, grade levels, curriculum and assessment.  Being in the "zone" has given our school the freedom to do what is best for our students.

That’s especially true in special education. There, we used to have people from the Region coming in to tell us who to decertify and try to dictate what should be on the IEPs.  This was without their ever meeting the students. Their intervention   seemed more motivated by budgetary concerns and by trendy ideas than by what our students needed or what the staff knew to be in the best interest of the students. The only problem we seem to have now is finding a speech teacher.

Right now, we do our own assessments, just as we always have. And it works. The biggest concern we do have now is the threat that would come from assessments that could be forced on us every six weeks. If that formula were is imposed, it will change for the worse the way teaching and learning is done at Beacon. That teaching and learning has been very successful. 

If we are indeed empowered, where principals have the autonomy to make decisions, that autonomy will be meaningless if we have to fit into a cookie cutter schedule of assessments.

That’s why I think that expanding the number of empowerment schools should not be done without first taking a close look at what each school is doing right. I also—and this may be key—that empowerment works when administrators, such as those at Beacon, are experienced educators with years of classroom practice, and that if "empowerment " was granted to people who are not experienced it could be a disaster.