Is a Prison Camp Comparable to Living Through a Hostile Work Environment?

First published June 4, 2012 By UndercoverLawyer 
1 Comment

I’ve been wanting to write more, and post more regularly to this blog. Like lots of people, instead of working directly on my goal I’ve procrastinated by doing any number of different things that feel like they are related to my goal, but really aren’t. I’ve compiled lists of writing ideas, written out writing schedules, got a new writing program to use on my laptop, and the mother-of-all-time-wasters: “research.”

In an effort to not waste so much time clicking from article to article on the web, I decided I would shut the laptop and go back to reading some full length books. But you got to start slow, right? Not just jump into reading dense legal reference books. So I thought it would be good to read a book about overcoming adversity, since so many of the people who visit this site are trying, desperately, to overcome severe adversity at work.

The book I picked up was “Unbroken: A World War II Story of Survival, Resilience, and Redemption”. It is the story of Army Air Forces bomber Louis Zamperini overcoming adversity, then worse adversity, then even worse adversity, then repeatedly facing death.

Not to give anything away, but even if you just read the cover flap of this book you’ll learn that Louis crashes into the pacific and is presumed lost. He and another from his plane survive for weeks in a life raft, face down sharks, dehydration, starvation, and then right when it appears they are going to be saved they get shot at and taken prisoner by the Japanese military.

The first portion of this book, where Louis fights nature to stay alive, is inspiring in a traditional way. It’s not too different than any “lost at sea” or “shipwrecked” story that you’ve heard before except that Unbroken is so exceptionally well written. Where the book becomes not just inspiring, but also deeply troubling and cautionary in tone is after the Japanese military captures Louis and he is sent to a prison camp.

What I got out of the book also changed. Instead of merely learning some lessons about “overcoming adversity” — of surviving a plane wreck and living in a life raft — when Louis and his friend Phil are sent to a prison camp the meaning of the book suddenly began to parallel the lives of so many people who are bullied and harassed at work.

No, really. I know some who read this article will think I’m going way over the top when I say that a WWII prison camp is an appropriate comparison for what it feels like to live in a hostile work environment. And, I do realize most employees don’t face death and beatings in the modern workplace.

But hear me out on why I think the prison camp actually is a good analogy for a truly hostile work environment; there are many parallels to how it FEELS.

• The inability to make sense of what is happening to you
• The confusion over why this being allowed to happen
• Why are good people standing by and not doing something to stop this?
• The mental anguish that continues even after the tormentor is gone for the day — the way the few minutes of actual interaction with the tormentor occupy the employee/prisoner’s mind for hour after anguishing hour, taking away sleep, the ability to interact with others, or even think about anything other than worry and fear over the NEXT interaction with the tormentor.

Here is the passage, describing how Louis and Phil maintained feelings of hope when they were trying to survive in their life raft after their plane (the Green Hornet) crashed. But, how difficult it became to maintain hope when instead of fighting nature, they became prisoners of war and had to fight off the humiliation their captors subjected them to.

This is the text that caused me to believe that prison camps are an instructive analogy for what it feels like to live through a hostile work environment:

The crash of Green Hornet had left Louie and Phil in the most desperate physical extremity, without food, water, or shelter. But on Kwajalein, the guards sought to deprive them of something that had sustained them even as all else had been lost: dignity. This self-respect and sense of self-worth, the innermost armament of the soul, lies at the heart of humanness; to be deprived of it is to be dehumanized, to be cleaved from, and cast below, mankind. Men subjected to dehumanizing treatment experience profound wretchedness and loneliness and find that hope is almost impossible to retain. Without dignity, identity is erased. In its absence, men are defined not by themselves, but by their captors and the circumstances in which they are forced to live. One American airman, shot down and relentlessly debased by his Japanese captors, described the state of mind that his captivity created: “I was literally becoming a lesser human being.”

In both situations the total organization is not completely evil. Even in the prison camps that Louis lived through there were guards who were humane, who showed compassion, and who tried to make life a little better for the prisoners.

There were also laws, from the Geneva convention, that were supposed to protect prisoners of war so that prisoners were treated humanely. In addition to the Geneva convention, the Japanese military had its own rules about the ethical treatment of prisoners, and set limits on what guards and prison officials could and could not do.

Just like business organizations, where most people are basically good, a few dark souls worked their way into positions of authority at the prison camps where Louis was held. While a prisoner of war Louis was abused by a prison official who oversaw a single camp who was known as “the Bird.” Bird wasn’t the head of all the prison camps, he was only in charge of one location at a time. There were good people in the Japanese Military above Bird, and there were good people below him. Despite the presence of ethical people around him, Bird was allowed to single out, abuse, beat and psychologically torment Louis.

Bird physically and mentally tortured Louis for no apparent reason. And for no apparent reason the ethical people around Bird did not step up and stop him from trying to destroy Louis. The international laws of the Geneva convention did not stop Bird from beating Louis. The Japanese Military’s own rules about ethical treatment of prisoners did not stop Bird from threatening Louis with death one day, then acting like he never made the threat the next day.

• Why did the laws fail Louis?
• Why did the internal rules of the Japanese military fail Louis?
• Why did the humane people above Bird and below Bird in the prison camp system fail to stop Bird from beating and mentally torturing Louis?
• And what was it about Bird himself that lead him to behave so cruelly?

All of these questions parallel the questions that abused employees ask themselves.

• Why are employment laws ignored?
• How come company policies are not followed?
• Why do executives turn a blind eye to abusive managers, and how come co-workers won’t stand up against a bully (is it for fear that they will become the bully’s next target)?

The similarities continue.  Prison camp survivors continue suffering mental anguish even after the confinement ends.  Louis struggled with nightmares about Bird. Even when safely back in the U.S., Louis either could not sleep, or his sleep was stolen by dreams of Bird torturing him both physically and psychologically. To help him avoid these painful memories and dreams, Louis began drinking every night. His marriage suffered. His body suffered. After surviving years of living in a military prison camp, the mere memories of abuse (rather than the abuse itself) nearly destroyed him.

Since the title of the book is “Unbroken”, you’ve probably figured out that the prison camps and memories of abuse by his tormentor do not ultimately destroy Louis. The book is inspiring, as I had hoped, but it is also more than that.

Unbroken provides keen insights into how it feels to be singled out for cruel and meaningless abuse by another human being. The book struggles to make sense out of how a few dark souls can bring themselves to intentionally cause another human being to suffer.  Though there really is no good explanation as to why one human acts so cruelly toward another, the message of the book is one of hope.

Somewhere deep inside every victim there is the capacity to cling to your essential human dignity, and not allow your tormentor to reach your soul. In each of us, deep inside, there is the strength to remain unbroken

FROM PRESIDENT DEAN VOGEL'S FIRST ATTEMPT AT... and OTHER PLATITUDES

Anyone who's been around for a while knows the CTA and parent NEA CAN"T STAND DISSENT! THEY ATTACK IT FROM THE BACK DOOR TO MAKE IT GO AWAY. COULD THIS EDITORIAL BELOW BE THE REAL REASON (AS NONE WAS GIVEN TO ME.) WHY CTA'S LEGAL ADVISORY BOARD REFUSED MY REQUEST OF "COMPETENT" LEGAL REPRESENTATION? IN SPITE OF THE FACT I FILED A GRIEVANCE WITH THE STATE BAR ON MY FORMER CTA APPOINTED ATTORNEY RONALD SKIPPER. WHILE THEY REFUSED TO ADDRESSED ANY OF MY NUMEROUS STATED REASONS IN THEIR REFUSAL LETTER. Perhaps they didn't like the fact that I asked for his billable hours billed on my behalf? Perhaps they disliked my outing their questionable CTA Attorney bonus system.  Can we spell "Collusion?"

THE LAST PARAGRAPH FROM "THE EDUCATOR MAGAZINE." Excerpt from president of CTA Dean Vogel" ...In the coming weeks, I know many of us will be preoccupied with year-end activities (and the grim future with no Job, and) little time to do much else than help our students and each other tie things up and move forward. But as we head into summer, I hope you take some time for yourselves to recuperate and recharge. I also hope you take some time to become involved with this campaign season. Read through this issue of the Educator, go to our website, learn about the election issues we face, and step up. For the sake of our students, and for the sake of our profession, we all need to be involved in the election ahead. If not us, who? If not now, when?" EXACTLY DEAN WHEN?

WHEN WILL CTA DEVELOP A STRIKE AND DEFENSE FUND? WHEN WILL CTA SHOW SOME TRANSPARENCY WITH ITS INTERNAL OPERATIONS? WHEN WILL CTA STOP TAKING 70% OF OUR LOCAL DUES AND RETURN ALMOST NOTHING? WHEN WILL CTA LAWYERS START REPRESENTING EVERY MEMBER WITHOUT CONSIDERATION FOR THE "COMPROMISE BONUS" THEIR PAID? WHEN WILL CTA START TO EMBRACE DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPALS SO EACH MEMBER HAS A SAY, AT LEAST IN THE ELECTION OF STATE "MANAGERS?" WHEN DEAN, WILL CTA STOP HIDING FROM DISSENT AND START TO TRY AND UNDERSTAND WHERE IT COMES FROM AND IT'S INTRINSIC VALUE? WHEN WILL CTA START A POLICY OF HONESTY WITH THEIR MEMBERSHIP? WHEN WILL CTA STEP UP AND LEAD US IN THE GOOD FIGHT INSTEAD OF SOFT SELLING EXCUSES AFTER THE FACT? AS THE TIDE OF GREED AND DESPERATE POLITICS IS ALREADY CRESTING, CARRYING OUR BEST AND BRIGHTEST HOPES IN ITS FILTHY WATERS; 

WHEN DEAN DOES CTA BECOME A REAL UNION?
I, PRAETORIAN (EDUCATOR)

Any Public School with Such a Record of Abuse, Corruption, and Anti-Social Malfeasance Would have been Shut Years Ago

Any Public School with such a record of abuse, corruption, and anti-social malfeasance would have been Shut Down Years Ago.  Why Did Authorities Look The Other Way For "Oakland Charter?"

 From the Oakland Tribune:

Published in Schools Matter, 6/17/2012

The head of an Oakland charter school organization that has made national headlines for its low-income students' outstanding test scores is now faced with mounting evidence that he used his position to enrich himself and his family. 

A state investigation into allegations of operational fraud and other unscrupulous activity by Ben Chavis -- a businessman who has also served, off and on, as director of three publicly funded but independently run charter schools named American Indian -- and his wife, who provided financial services to the school, cited numerous examples of financial conflicts of interest and fraudulent expenditures.

The American Indian Model's middle schools have the best test scores in Oakland and among the highest in the state; its high school also has near-perfect scores. In his book, "Crazy like a Fox," Director Ben Chavis touts the model's success and ridicules the public school system for wasting tax dollars, arguing that schools don't need more money.

But in recent months, Chavis' own stewardship of public funds has come under scrutiny. The state Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance Team, which produced the scathing report, was asked by Alameda County Superintendent Sheila Jordan to investigate allegations made by a former employee of financial abuses -- including a $100,000 salary he took during at least one year of his retirement.

Now that auditors have found significant evidence to back those claims, 

---

---

Chavis could soon find himself the subject of a criminal investigation. Jordan announced Wednesday she would forward the case to the District Attorney's office, as recommended by the audit team. Jordan said she also wrote a letter to Oakland Superintendent Tony Smith, asking the district to consider revoking the schools' charters.

"The lack of oversight by the AIMS board and the unethical practices by its founder are unacceptable and an abuse of the public trust," Jordan said.

Between mid-2007 and the end of 2011, the school paid Chavis, his wife, Marsha Amador, and their various real estate and consulting businesses about $3.8 million, the auditors found. Many of those payments were made with state and federal facilities grants in the form of construction contracts to Chavis' companies -- business deals for school construction work that never went out to bid.

Meanwhile, the school's weak governing board did little to stand in the way, auditors found. For a short period of time last year, Chavis served on the board while he was employed as the organization's director and his wife was handling the books.

"The lack of due diligence and internal controls by the governing board has effectively granted the founder and his spouse unrestricted access to the assets of the organization and implied authority to enter into a variety of business arrangements for personal gain," the report stated.

Other findings included the opening and closing of bank accounts without approval and $25,700 in credit card purchases billed to the school with no authorization or apparent benefit to the school. They included airfare, restaurant, hotel and retail bills from out-of-state, including the North Carolina town where Chavis owns a farm; DirecTV; Giants tickets; and costs related to another venture, which foundered after the investigation became public -- the opening of a charter school in Arizona.

Chavis announced his retirement before the start of 2007-08 school year and returned to the school as director in 2011. He said at a recent hearing that he was a paid adviser during some of the time in between.

Chavis could not be immediately reached for comment.

Although Chavis did not found the original school, his name and reputation are most closely associated with the organization. A Lumbee Indian from North Carolina, he overhauled the academic program when he took over as director of the original school in East Oakland's Laurel District in 2000.

The new curriculum emphasized reading, writing and math and eliminated much of the school's Native American cultural teachings. Chavis instilled a strict and unorthodox discipline system that would bring notoriety to the school, sometimes using humiliation to motivate students to behave.

The most famous example of Chavis' brand of discipline is a student head-shaving that took place at a school assembly, with parent permission, after the boy was caught stealing. Today, few if any of the school's students are Native American.

Chavis announced his retirement shortly after the Oakland school district's charter schools office began raising concerns about his conduct. That spring, the East Bay Express published a story about an explosive incident involving a Mills College professor and graduate students who had come to tour the school. An African-American graduate student said Chavis cursed at him and aggressively kicked him out of the school -- claims that Chavis later acknowledged to be true, saying it was because the student came late.

The Oakland school district's charter school office, under new leadership, again expressed concerns this year when one of the three schools, American Indian Public Charter School II, applied for a renewed charter. The charter office recommended that the Oakland school board deny the charter renewal, potentially closing the school.

But at a packed hearing in which Chavis entered to rousing applause, the Oakland school board went against the charter school office's recommendation and, in a 4-3 vote, allowed the high-performing school to stay open.

Chris Dobbins, an Oakland school board member who supported the school at that meeting, said Wednesday afternoon that he couldn't "tear the school apart" because of the alleged improprieties of its leader. Even now, he said, he didn't have an easy answer.
"At the end of the day, it's hard to argue those test scores," he said. "It's a really hard question."

Read Katy Murphy's Oakland schools blog at www.IBAbuzz.com/education. Follow her at Twitter.com/katymurphy.

evidence against chavis

The Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance team published the below findings about apparent conflicts of interest and misappropriation of funds at American Indian Model schools -- mostly by its founder and current director, Ben Chavis:

Publicly funded construction contracts for school improvements with Chavis' personal businesses were "not supported by formal contracts, competitive bidding or authorization by the governing board." That is a violation of federal regulations and could result in the loss of all federal funding to AIMS schools. 

In addition to wages and construction income, Chavis collected $2.8 million from the schools through rent and storage fees he charged as the school landlord, additional construction projects and a mandatory summer program run by his private business. Some checks from a school bank account were written to Chavis' companies and signed by Chavis.

In all, the schools made $3.8 million in payments to Chavis, his wife and their businesses from 2007-08 through the end of 2011.

Chavis' wife, Marsha Amador, provided financial administrative services to the schools. Her duties included general accounting; processing accounts payable; compliance reporting to local, state and federal agencies; and assisting with an annual audit. 

Chavis' personal and unrelated business expenses were commingled with purchases for the AIMS schools.About 35 percent of the credit card purchases paid for from the schools' accounts $25,700," ...were inappropriate or lack proper authorization." Many of the purchases originated out of state.

Memphis Consolidation Plan Trojan Horse for Urban Privatization Via Charter Schools

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Memphis Consolidation Plan Trojan Horse for Urban Privatization Via Charter Schools

When Memphis City Schools announced it would accept $90 million from Gates to "improve teacher quality," Supt. Kriner Cash blubbered, “This is huge, this is huge, this puts Memphis City Schools in very elite territory, on the front page of the nation.”  Now almost three years later, Gates's fingerprints are on every aspect of school operations in Memphis, including a scheme to shut down 21 public schools in Memphis and turn the buildings over to corporate charter schools.  Now Cash and the Memphis City Schools are faced with a whole list of disturbing recommendations, including one that would totally disrupt the feeder school system in Memphis, which will lead to privatized high schools in the next phase of corporate takeover--if the Gates lemmings have their way.  From the Commercial Appeal:

 ...For MCS, among the most disturbing is the recommendation to cut 21 city schools and lease the space to charter schools. TPC estimates annual savings at $21 million, already plugged into the finance section to reduce an estimated $57 million deficit between the plan and revenue.

Cash insists the cuts won't save $21 million. He takes further exception that the majority of schools on the close list are in an "already underpopulated" southwest corner of the city.

"This would escalate that hemorrhaging," he said, adding that no one filed a plan with the city for refurbishing what would be gutted neighborhoods.

The list of to-close includes an inordinate number of middle schools, Cash says, which would "decimate the feeder pattern" in the southwest... .

Hispanic Girls Face Special Barriers on Road to College

Hispanic women are more likely than Hispanic men to complete high school and college, but they still trail white and African-American women

Originally Published in Ed Week 6/19/2012

By Katherine Leal Unmuth

Dallas: After 15-year-old Valerie Sanchez spent a day of her spring break in Fort Worth touring the well-manicured grounds of Texas Christian University and listening to an inspirational talk from members of a Latina sorority, she felt sure of her future.

"I'm going to college," says the teenager after the visit organized by the Dallas center of Girls Inc., a national nonprofit group. "I want to be the first in my family."

But like many young Latinas, she faces a host of challenges in the coming years, as she works to graduate from high school, go on to community college, and then enroll in a four-year institution.

Sanchez moved from Mexico when she was 9 years old and enrolled in the 156,000-student Dallas Independent School District. After taking bilingual classes taught in Spanish and English, she found the transition to all-English classes in middle school difficult.

Consequently, Sanchez was held back in the 8th grade last year at Edison Middle Learning Center here in Dallas. She now attends tutoring sessions after school in addition to programs provided by Girls Inc. that focus on career planning and pregnancy prevention.

The plight of Latino young men often dominates the discussion of graduation rates. But young Latinas also face cultural, economic, and educational barriers to finishing high school and entering and completing college.

"There's the assumption that girls are doing fine," says Lara Kaufmann, a senior counsel at the National Women's Law Center, in Washington. "It's true that within ethnic groups girls are doing better than boys. But they're not doing well."

Falling Behind

While Hispanic women are more likely to graduate from high school and college when compared with Hispanic men, some statistics suggest they trail behind African-American and white women on some such measures.

Postsecondary Engagement Lags for Latinas

Latinas ages 18 to 24 have lower postsecondary-engagement rates than Asian, white, and black women of the same age bracket. Asian women are twice as likely as Latinas to be either enrolled in higher education or to have a postsecondary credential.

SOURCE: EPE Research Center, 2012. Analysis of data from the American Community Survey (2008-2010), U.S. Census Bureau.

According to a Pew Hispanic Center analysis of 2011 Census survey data, about 17 percent of Hispanic females ages 25 to 29 have at least a bachelor's degree, compared with about 10 percent of Hispanic males, 43 percent of white females, and 23 percent of black females in that age span.

To delve into why such gaps persist, the National Women's Law Center collaborated with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund on a 2009 study on educational outcomes for Latinas.

While the middle and high school girls interviewed in the report said they wanted to graduate from college, they also said they didn't expect to achieve that goal. The report also cited challenges for them in reaching educational goals, including such difficulties as immigration status, poverty, discrimination, low self-esteem, higher rates of depression and attempted suicide, gender stereotypes, and limited English proficiency.

A cultural emphasis on loyalty to family also can play a role. Latinas may be expected to take on additional duties as caregivers, such as helping to watch younger children or aid elderly family members. They may be expected to live with their parents until they are married, making it difficult to leave home to go away to college.

Ties That Bind

Celina Cardenas mentors Hispanic girls in the 37,000-student Richardson Independent School District in the Dallas suburbs. Cardenas, a district community-relations coordinator, is Mexican-American and feels she can relate to their experiences.

Valerie Sanchez, 15, works on a writing assignment during reading class at the Thomas A. Edison Middle Learning Center in Dallas. The eighth grader is working to become the first in her family to attend college.

—Allison V. Smith for Education Week

"It's kind of like you're born with responsibility—especially the girls," she says. "Doing something on your own may not sit very comfortably with them because they may not want to let anyone down. I talk to them a lot about not feeling selfish that they're disappointing their family by going away, and understanding there's nothing wrong with having those goals."

Family loyalty can cause Hispanic girls to choose less-competitive colleges than they are qualified to attend so they can keep living with their parents. They may also not be well informed about financial-aid opportunities to attend more expensive schools.

University of Texas at San Antonio education professor Anne-Marie Nuñez says that when girls live at home while in college, they may have a hard time focusing on their studies because of family obligations.

"They may be juggling multiple responsibilities that pull them away from being able to focus on their studies," Nuñez says. "Other family members may not understand the energy they need to focus on their studies."

In Texas, a nonprofit online magazine written by girls, called Latinitas, aims to empower young women. The organization also provides workshops, mentoring, and college tours. On the website, Saray Argumedo, 23, shares her own experiences about the tension with her family when she studied at the University of Texas at El Paso.

"All I can do is ask for forgiveness when my mom questions why I spend all my time outside of the house studying, working, and getting involved in my community," she writes. "I thought that they would be proud of me, but why are they so angry?"

Teenage Motherhood

Young Latinas also are more likely than most young women in the United States to have their own children as teenagers. According to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, in Washington, about 52 percent of Latinas become pregnant before age 20, nearly twice the national average. In Dallas, the nonprofit group Alley's House helps mothers complete their General Educational Development, or GED, studies and build their confidence.

Yesenya Consuelo, 19, dropped out of Spruce High School in Dallas her freshman year when she became pregnant with her now-4-year-old daughter. Consuelo wants to study at a community college to be a surgical technologist, but she needs to pass the math portion of the GED, which she has failed twice. She comes to Alley's House for math tutoring four days a week.

Consuelo says her daughter is her motivation to finish school. "I'm trying to be the best I can for her," she says.

Despite the challenges, says Nuñez, the education professor, "the truth is Latino families have as high aspirations as other groups. Sometimes, they just don't know how to translate those aspirations to reality."

Katherine Leal Unmuth is a Dallas-based freelance-writer.

Latino education issues at latinoedbeat.org.

Request for Waiver of Provisions of Sections 1116(b) and (c) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
TOM TORLAKSON, State Superintendent of Public Instruction
916-319-0800

CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
MICHAEL W. KIRST, President
916-319-0827

1430 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814-5901

June 15, 2012

Deborah Delisle, Assistant Secretary
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20202

Dear Assistant Secretary Delisle:

Subject: Request for Waiver of Provisions of Sections 1116(b) and (c) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Pursuant to Section 9401 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

As President of the State Board of Education and State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and on behalf of all California districts, we are requesting a waiver of certain provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Like Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, we recognize that the No Child Left Behind Act, with its escalating proficiency targets and associated sanctions, is no longer useful for identifying which schools need improvement or for intervening appropriately in those schools. The appropriate solution is to reauthorize the Act, replace its inflexible requirements with provisions that accommodate the differences in state policy approaches, and give districts adequate flexibility to improve student achievement. In the meantime, we seek more immediate relief through this waiver request.

The members of the State Board of Education and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction have given careful consideration to the waiver package offered by Secretary Duncan and appreciate that Acting Assistant Secretary Michael Yudin visited our state and discussed its provisions with us.

 As we conveyed to Acting Assistant Secretary Yudin at the January State Board of Education meeting, California state law requires that the state reimburse local educational agencies for the cost of any state-mandated activities. Given California’s severe, ongoing fiscal challenges, it is impossible for the state or its districts to implement the requirements of the Secretary’s waiver package effectively and within the required timeline, and we are not willing to make promises that we are unable to carry out. We ask that you consider instead our waiver request contained in this letter, which has three main objectives:

1.    Ending the ineffective practice of over-identifying schools and districts for program improvement. Unrealistic and ever-increasing performance targets have forced us to label 63 percent of Title I schools and 47 percent of districts receiving Title I funds as “needing improvement,” and to apply sanctions that do not necessarily lead to improved learning for the students in those schools. This practice has confused the public, demoralized teachers, and tied up funds that could have been more precisely targeted on the schools and districts that are most in need of improvement.

2.    Giving districts greater spending flexibility to increase student achievement. We request a waiver of the requirements that schools in improvement set aside funds for Title I professional development, supplemental educational services, and choice-related transportation activities. Instead, these funds should be available for the activities that will be most effective for improving teaching and learning in the local context, which could include, for example, targeted tutoring provided by the districts and schools, teacher coaching to improve instruction, or systems for identifying specific student achievement problems and developing targeted instructional interventions.

3.    Transitioning to a single, transparent accountability system. After more than a decade of living under two conflicting accountability systems, California’s districts, schools, and public want to return to a single system that works. Before President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act into law, California had implemented a robust accountability system that encouraged school improvement and sent a single, consistent message to the public about how well schools were doing to improve the achievement of students. The state statutes that established that system are still in place and represent a more effective approach. Now that the shortcomings of the federal system are more widely understood, we want to return our focus to our state system that has a proven track record of measuring growth.

To achieve these ends, the State Board of Education as the State Educational Agency is specifically seeking a waiver to exempt local educational agencies in California from Title I, Part A sections 1116(b) and (c) with the exception of subsections 1116(b)(13) and 1116(c)(4). We are requesting this waiver for the 2012–13 and 2013–14 academic years.

In accordance with the waiver authority established in federal law (Section 9401 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act), we outline in this letter California’s specific, measurable educational goals, describe how the state will measure progress toward these goals, and explain the state’s plan for assisting schools and districts in meeting those goals. Please note that in this request, we only describe current and planned initiatives to the extent that they address these requirements and fit within the policy parameters established by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We can provide additional information about other aspects of our education system that are of interest to the Secretary, but do not consider such information pertinent to this specific request.

California’s Current Accountability System

California’s Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 established the state’s school accountability program. Specifically, it:

·         Created the Academic Performance Index, a composite, test-based score ranging from 200 to 1,000 that reflects overall school performance and measures improvement in school performance from one year to the next;

·         Established a statewide performance target of 800 on the Academic Performance Index and a system for setting annual school-level targets that encourage steady improvement toward that statewide goal;

·         Required schools to demonstrate improvement for all numerically significant student groups including racial and ethnic student groups, socioeconomically disadvantaged pupils, English learners, and students with disabilities;

·         Defined a system of intervention in under performing schools, including standards, criteria, and qualifications for external evaluators to assist low-performing schools; and

·         Established eligibility criteria for an awards program for schools meeting or exceeding state growth targets.

Investments in Intervention

Since establishing the state accountability system, California has invested heavily in interventions for schools that failed to make significant growth as measured by the Academic Performance Index. Between 2000–01 and 2007–08, the state provided funding and technical assistance to 1,288 schools under the Immediate Intervention Under-performing Schools Program at a cost of $668.6 million. Of these, 1,140 schools ultimately met their growth targets and exited the program.

Also during that time, 802 schools participated in the High Priority Schools Grant Program at a cost of $749.3 million. Of those schools, 309 that failed to make significant growth were assigned to work with an intervention team. While this program was helpful to many participating schools, program evaluations suggested that longer term district-level approaches could be more effective, leading the state to shift its focus accordingly. From 2008–12, California allocated $177 million to districts in program improvement, for district-level assistance and intervention teams, and other activities. The first three years of evaluation data suggest that the district assistance and intervention model is effective for increasing student achievement.

In addition, the state established the Quality Education Investment Act in 2006. This $3 billion state initiative assists schools that were performing in the lowest two deciles of the Academic Performance Index at the program’s inception. This infusion of resources has helped these schools reduce class size, increase student access to school counselors, provide professional development, increase the number of highly qualified teachers, and improve facilities, among other activities. (Note that in 2008, California’s severe budget crisis led the state to collapse several categorical programs, including the Immediate Intervention Under-performing Schools Program and the High Priority Schools Grant Program described above. Funding for the Quality Education Investment Act remains intact.)

Outcomes to Date

In the past 13 years, California’s accountability system has led to increased student achievement overall and strong progress on closing the achievement gap. Since the full implementation of the California Standards Tests in 2003, academic achievement for all students in both English-language arts and mathematics has been steadily increasing. In English-language arts, the percent of students scoring proficient or advanced increased from 35 percent in 2003 to 54 percent in 2011, marking a substantial increase in the number of students who are prepared to succeed in college or career. California’s most vulnerable students also showed major improvement: the percent of students scoring at the lower level of achievement decreased by 13 percentage points over that same period, from 32 percent in 2003 to 19 percent in 2011.

California students have also made impressive gains in mathematics: the percent of students scoring proficient or advanced increased from 35 percent in 2003 to 50 percent in 2011. Across that same time period, the percent of students scoring at the lower level of achievement decreased by 11 percentage points from 38 percent in 2003 to 27 percent in 2011.

These substantial gains in test scores are reflected in the state accountability system. In 2003, for example, an elementary school in the lowest 10 percent had an Academic Performance Index score between 564 and 609 points. In 2011, an elementary school in the lowest 10 percent had an Academic Performance Index score between 700 and 714 points.

To summarize, while the federal system has subsumed increasing numbers of schools and districts under the banner of failure for the last decade, California’s system has consistently differentiated between schools that are improving and those that are not.

Looking Ahead: Plans for Change

With this state-defined request, we are seeking to return to a single system of school accountability that is both understandable and rigorous. We intend to keep the Academic Performance Index at the core of our state accountability system, while making improvements. This waiver request will provide much-needed flexibility and relief from the adverse effects of the No Child Left Behind Act, while increasing our focus on the schools most in need of improved student learning.

We plan to strengthen California’s system of accountability and interventions as follows:

         California will transition to a single system of performance goals that uses the annual Academic Performance Index schoolwide and student group targets as the state’s Annual Measureable Objectives. The state will continue to identify schools and districts needing improvement, but will use its own accountability system to identify them. The State Board of Education will initiate conforming changes as needed to California’s Accountability Workbook and submit these to the U.S. Department of Education for review. (California’s current Annual Measureable Objectives, as required by Section 9401 (b)(1)(C), are documented in the state’s approved Accountability Workbook, available on the California Department of Education Accountability Workbook Web page at http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/wb.asp.)

·         The State Board of Education will consider by January 2013 revisions to the statewide Academic Performance Index target or revisions to the method for calculating annual schoolwide and student group targets. While the Academic Performance Index was designed to encourage growth at all performance levels, we believe we need to carefully examine the effects of the target structure, particularly for schools that have long met the statewide target, to encourage continued focus on students who are not proficient. We will seek input from the Public Schools Accountability Act Advisory Committee and California’s education community at large to help make this determination. If the State Board of Education adopts new targets, those will become California’s Annual Measureable Objectives in the following school year.

·         By March 2013, the State Board of Education, with input from the Public Schools Accountability Act Advisory Committee, will determine how it will use the Academic Performance Index to identify a targeted number of schools and districts that have not shown improvement over time or have low absolute performance. This process will replace the process of identifying schools and districts for Program Improvement under the No Child Left Behind Act.

o    The State Board of Education will identify a more targeted set of schools and districts for intervention, specifically those low-performing schools and districts that have not improved.

o    The State Board of Education will develop clear criteria to identify the targeted set of schools and districts that have not improved and require intervention, but will not require that a specific percentage be identified each year, or set other requirements that lead to schools and districts bouncing in and out of this status. The State Board of Education will also develop clear criteria to identify when schools and districts have improved sufficiently to regain full flexibility and autonomy from state interventions.

o    The State Board of Education will consider moving to a multi-year (“rolling”) accountability measure or other techniques to smooth out fluctuations in scores, prevent schools from bouncing in and out of improvement status from year to year, and focus attention on the schools with the most intractable problems.

·         By July 2013, the State Board of Education, with input from the Title I Committee of Practitioners, will identify what sanctions will be imposed on schools and districts that have been identified as not improving, based on the severity and persistence of underachievement problems. Those sanctions, currently authorized under state law, include: (a) replacing district personnel; (b) removing schools from the jurisdiction of the district and establishing alternative governance and supervision arrangements; (c) appointing a state receiver or trustee to administer the affairs of the district in place of the local governing board; (d) abolishing or restructuring the district; (e) authorizing students to transfer to higher performing schools in other districts and providing transportation; (f) instituting a new curriculum based on state content standards; and (g) deferring programmatic funds or reducing administrative funds. In recent years California has exercised its takeover option, appointing state trustees in three persistently low-performing districts. (Two of these districts have improved and regained autonomy from the state; the trustee is still in place in the third.)

o    The state will focus its monitoring efforts at the district level, both because of capacity constraints, and to ensure district support for school improvement.

o    Specific improvement activities will be selected based on the needs of the school and district, as determined by local data analysis and the qualitative judgments of individuals who are familiar with the school and district.

o    Required improvement activities will largely focus on instruction, including activities that promote teacher collaboration and instructional coaching. Instructional improvement activities will emphasize a broad curriculum. Numerous California schools districts have been implementing research-based interventions which are improving student achievement and will be considered for incorporation in a statewide intervention model.

o    The State Board of Education will bring more qualitative judgment to the process of identifying appropriate interventions and sanctions, using as guidance existing state standards and criteria for assessing district performance in seven key areas: governance; alignment of curriculum, instruction, and assessments to state standards; fiscal operations; parent and community involvement; human resources; data systems and achievement monitoring; and professional development. The State Board of Education may use local review panels to identify problems and assign required activities.

o    If our waiver is granted, these activities can be paid for, in part, with federal funds that are currently set aside for SES, Title I professional development, and choice-related transportation. Under the current system, local educational agencies and schools are obligated to direct Title I improvement resources to activities that frequently do not align with their local needs.

o    Another possible source of funds is the approximately $35 million annual  allocation for local educational agencies that are newly identified as needing improvement under the No Child Left Behind Act ($50,000, $100,000, or $150,000 per local educational agency, depending on the severity of the performance problem). Because of escalating performance targets, these funds are going currently to districts with moderate performance problems and could be better targeted. This may require a change in state statute to re-purpose the funds.

·         To support improved teaching and learning, districts will revise annual district and school plans to document how schools and local educational agencies are using their formerly reserved Title I, Part A funds to meet the needs of Title I eligible students. These plans will be uploaded to the state’s web-based system, allowing the California Department of Education to monitor the plans and provide timely technical assistance to districts as they redirect funds and human resources to better support student learning.

In Conclusion

California is moving forward with a plan to increase student learning, building on the strong foundation we already have. We understand the obvious and important link between quality teaching and learning. The State has adopted the Common Core State Standards and is on course to implement them on the timeline established in state statute, in line with what the state budget allows. As you know, California is also a governing state in the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium and anticipates a transition to new online assessments in 2015. In anticipation of this, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction and the State Board of Education will recommend action by the State to reauthorize and streamline the State’s assessment system and ensure a smooth transition to the new tests. At the direction of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr., the State Board of Education will concurrently review our state accountability system and consider how to keep the Academic Performance Index intact as a strong quantitative measure of school performance, while giving additional emphasis to local judgments of quality and other, more qualitative accountability mechanisms, such as the School Accountability Report Cards that all schools must produce annually.

Our goals now are the same as they were when we first established the state accountability system in 1999—to maintain challenging yet achievable goals, and to assist underperforming schools in ways that improve student learning. California has been a leader and innovator in numerous fields, and we plan to return to that role in education accountability. Just as California led the way in developing auto emission standards that were ultimately adopted across the nation, we now want to lead the nation in education accountability and student learning as well. As we approach reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we believe that our state system of accountability provides a strong model for national consideration.

In the absence of reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we request this waiver to provide districts with the flexibility they need to use Title I resources effectively and improve the academic achievement of their students. As we have described in this letter, we are committed to upholding school accountability in our state and excellence in our schools. Using our established state system of accountability and the tough sanctions authorized in existing state law, we will redouble our efforts to hold districts and schools accountable for improving student learning.

We have developed this waiver request by working collaboratively with local educational agencies and stakeholders, and we will implement the plan with continued collaboration.

Prior to submitting this waiver request, California provided all local educational agencies and educational stakeholders in the state with notice and a reasonable opportunity to comment on this request. The specific notice posting is available on the California Department of Education Public Notices Web page athttp://www.cde.ca.gov/be/pn/pn/. Copies of all comments that California received from local educational agencies in response to this notice are attached. California has provided notice and information regarding this waiver request to the public in the manner in which California customarily provides such notice and information to the public.

If you have questions regarding this request, please contact Deborah V.H. Sigman, Deputy Superintendent, District, School, and Innovation Branch, by phone at 916-319-0812 or by e-mail at dsigman@cde.ca.gov.

Sincerely,

TOM TORLAKSON
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
California Department of Education

MICHAEL W. KIRST
President
California State Board of Education

TT/MK:

Download Free Readers

California Department of Education
1430 N Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

Contact Us  |  FAQ  |  Web Policy 

Last Reviewed: Tuesday, June 19, 2012

ENOUGH IS TOO MUCH...

EDUCATORS: HEAR THIS NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


This week marks the first anniversary of the final fight for our careers, avocations and public education for all children. REGARDLESS OF YOUR OPINION ON THE MATTER. IF YOU ARE AN EDUCATOR AND  HAVE NOT YET BEEN SUSPENDED WITHOUT PAY. YOU HAVE NO CLUE. BUT DON'T BE SO FOOLISH AS TO THINK THIS FIGHT ISN'T COMING TO YOU.

This is the Fight of Our Professional Lives. Are You In or Out (for now)?

ALL SUSPENDED EDUCATORS:

TEACHERS, COUNSELORS, SITE ADMIN. AND CLASSIFIED. MAY BE  YOU KNOW SOMEONE?

YOU ARE NOT ALONE, NOT A VILLAIN, AND ARE BEING DENIED YOUR DUE PROCESS AND RIGHTS. 


I KNOW FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AND IT IS HAPPENING  1) IN MOST DISTRICTS  2) RIGHT NOW TODAY. 


HUNDREDS OF EDUCATORS, ARE SUFFERING ALONE, MISINFORMED, LIED TO AND ALMOST ALL OF US ARE COINCIDENTALLY, AT THE TOP OF THE PAY SCALE!!! 


BUT UNLIKE ANY OTHER TIME WE ARE BEING SUSPENDED

WITH NO PAY AT ALL; BEFORE, DURING AND REGARDLESS OF THE DISTRICT'S INVESTIGATIONS" 


This is becoming just another way budget strapped or just mismanaged School Districts are reducing their overhead. Further, in swapping one experienced devoted educator for 1.80 (read two) first year college grad.s, the district can reduce the numbers of educators covered by union contract. If they keep this newbie on a year to year temporary contract, that newbie statistically will quit after the fourth year. Enough time and the union rank and file  numbers - and the benefits and salaries -  dwindle away. Public education suffers, the children suffer and ultimately our nations future.

UNFORTUNEATLY, CTA IS POWERLESS AND SEEMINGLY UNINTERESTED. 


THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT OFFICES WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO PREVENT THESE THINGS ARE CRIPPLED BY LACK OF FUNDING. 


THE VAST MAJORITY OF CTA ATTORNEYS WILL NOT FULLY ATTEMPT TO DEFEND YOU. HERE'S WHY.

INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE SHOWING THESE ATTORNEYS PER AGREEMENT WITH THE CTA, ACTUALLY GET A PERCENTAGE OF CERTAIN SETTLEMENT CONTRACT SAVINGS ON TOP OF THE HOURS THEY BILL. 


THEY MAKE THEIR REAL MONEY WHEN YOU ARE ROBBED, SCARED AND VULNERABLE TO BAD ADVICE. IT HAPPENED TO ME AND THOUSANDS OF OTHERS.

ENOUGH IS TOO MUCH... WE HAVE FORMED A LOCAL SUPPORT GROUP THAT IS FIGHTING BACK AND WINNING. 


WE  WILL FIGHT WITH YOU AND YOU WITH US. WE ARE EDUCATORS LIKE YOU, GOING THROUGH THE SAME TYPES OF LIES AND MISTREATMENT. WE KNOW HOW YOU ARE FEELING.  WE HAVE HUGH AMOUNTS OF  READY INFORMATION. WE INVITE ONLY GOOD SOLID ATTORNEYS ON CONTINGENCY. WE SHARE OUR KNOWLEDGE AND RESORCES. 


WE DON'T HOWEVER, ENDORCE ANY COLLECTIVE INTERESTS OR ATTORNEYS. THIS ARTICLE IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE OR LEGAL OPINION. THERE ARE NO FEES INVOLVED WITH THE SUPPORT GROUP.

CALL AND JOIN US... RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW - TODAY. (951) 732-7091 


TO PROTECT ALL OUR MEMBERS WE WILL PUT YOU THROUGH A SMALL SCREENING. TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE WHO YOU SAY YOU ARE. DON'T BE OFFENDED this process WILL PROTECT YOU TOO!

CALL THIS NUMBER. (951) 732-7091 LEAVE YOUR REAL NAME, RETURN NUMBER AND AS MUCH DETAIL ABOUT YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES AS POSSIBLE. 


FEAR NOT! WE WILL CHECK YOUR BACKGROUND THEN CONTACT YOU! CALLING IMPLIES CONSENT TO DO A LIMITED BACKGROUND CHECK.
(LIMITED MEANS NO FINANCIAL, CIVIL OR CRIMINAL INFORMATION.)

WE MUST DO THESE THINGS TO KEEP OUT THE DISTRICTS PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATORS  OR OPPOSITION ATTORNEYS from MISREPRESENTING  THEMSELVES TO TRY AND GET INFORMATION. WE SUPPORT TRANSPARENCY, HOWEVER NOT NECESSARILY WITH THESE LIEING JACKAL'S


HANG TOUGH, DON'T RUN AND DON'T TALK TO ANYONE.


IF THREATENED WITH INSUBORDINATION FOR NOT TALKING, TELL THEM IT IS YOUR INTENT TO COOPERATE BUT YOU'VE BEEN ADVISED BY CTA TO WAIT FOR A CTA REPRESENTATIVE. IT SHOULD BE YOUR LOCAL PRESIDENT OR VICE PRESIDENT (My opinion). ACCORDING TO THE legal Precedents set by LYBARGER AND GARRITY, YOU HAVE THIS RIGHT. Please click on the links and read these for yourself. The rulings' legalese has been simplified for us.


SOME DISTRICT HR PERSONELL (INCLUDING P.I.s) WILL LIE AND THREATEN YOU TO GET WHAT THEY WANT. DON'T GIVE IT TO THEM. 


THEY WILL USE THE INFORMATION YOU PROVIDE AGAINST YOU ALMOST WITHOUT EXCEPTION!


I would like to thank the San Jose Municipal Employee's Association for putting an invaluable amount of germain information out on their web site for us. These are things your Local, or CTA attorney AREN'T likely to talk to you about. Mine didn't.

CTA Cowards and NTA lackies - hear this

    FUCK MARCHING ON SACRAMENTO.

  MARCH ON BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA.

    WE WILL BE HEARD! October, 2012!

When Jonah Edelman, a school reform activist was videotaped bragging how his organization had outfoxed the Chicago Teachers Union by helping pass legislation he thought would make it impossible for teachers to strike...

That’s when Jonah Edelman, a "school reform activist" out of Oregon, was videotaped before a Colorado think tank bragging how his organization had outfoxed the Chicago Teachers Union by helping pass legislation in Illinois he thought would make it impossible for teachers here to strike.

The provision of which Edelman was so proud: a requirement that the CTU couldn’t authorize a strike without an affirmative vote from 75 percent of its members.

“The unions cannot strike in Chicago. They will never be able to muster the 75 percent threshold necessary to strike,” boasted Edelman, basing his prediction on data showing past strike authorizations had never exceeded 50 percent of the membership. Edelman suggested the teachers hadn’t done their homework.

A lot of folks figured he was probably correct about the 75 percent threshold being insurmountable. Not any more.

Teacher discontent is so pervasive within CPS that the possibility of the union passing a strike authorization vote — not to be confused with actually going out on strike — now looms as a strong possibility.