The day after I got back from my trip to Europe, I was already feeling the pressure to start getting ready for my upcoming year. As I have reflected on my first year this summer, I feel I have grown a lot as an educator — I will certainly start this coming year off very differently than last year. Still, everyone says the second year is in some ways harder than the first. In the first year, I was not as hard on myself when things went wrong, telling myself it was a rookie mistake that I would learn from. In my second year, however, I know I will not be as forgiving. I’ll still be experimenting a lot, trying new techniques and lesson ideas, but after seeing how poorly my students did on the Regents last year, I am determined to do much better with my second crop of students.

Here’s what I’m thinking about as the new school year approaches:

1. Lesson Planning — Having strong lesson plans and unit plans ready before the year starts was a goal of mine last year that didn’t really pan out. I only had about a week and a half fully planned before beginning the year and that set me back for the rest of the semester. This year, I already have a week planned out, plus the overviews for the following two weeks, and I still have plenty of time to plan. My goal now is to have the first two units (about 8 or 9 weeks) planned before I start. I will also have time to co-plan, so that both my special education co-teacher and I are on the same page with the lessons. If I can do that, I’ll be in great shape going in.

2. New Classroom Routines — I’m redesigning how certain things work in my classroom work, especially homework. Last year, I planned to give homework almost every night, but the excessive amount of time I spent grading made me cut back. After observing a friend’s system, I plan to give homework EVERY night, so that it becomes a routine, but not collect it every time. Instead, students will check each other and I will simply record whether it was done or not. I also plan to allow more time for students to go over homework and quizzes — I ran out of time last year, but with better planning, I can surely fit this in.

3. Creating a Student-Centered Classroom — I read the book “Work Hard. Be Nice.” this summer (review to come) and it gave me some ideas about how a classroom should run — crisp, smooth transitions and lots of back and forth between students and teachers, like having a conversation. I want to include more student choice and have more classes driven by their questions and interests. Obviously it will still need to be directed in a way that prepares them for the end-of-year tests, but giving them ownership and having stricter policies will help with my classroom management.

4. Making Learning More Fun — While fun in the classroom is a controversial issue, I feel that students learn much more when they are absorbed and enjoying what they are doing. With proper planning, I think I can avoid the common pitfalls of having fun destroy any learning. There are ways to have both. I love the arts, especially music and drama, and I know many of my students do as well. By incorporating those things into the classroom, I can differentiate instruction to reach all learners and create lessons that truly engage students.

5. Decorating the Classroom — First impressions are very important, and although most of my students already met me last year, I want their first glimpse into my classroom to tell them that this is a new year and it is now their classroom. I didn’t do a great job last year of having essential questions around the room and using the posters that I did have in my lessons. This year, I want my walls to be completely covered with student work, vocabulary words, reminders and colorful posters to get kids excited about the classroom.

There is much more to do, but these are my top priorities. I hope all the other teachers out there are feeling confident about the upcoming year!

Under the terms of the agreement the UFT obtained the reinstatement of the teachers who wished to return to Merrick this fall. They will be reinstated at their old salaries. Other teachers and staff have had their cases resolved to their satisfaction. Further details of the settlement remain confidential.

UFT President Michael Mulgrew said, “Teachers have a right to organize and bargain collectively, and we are happy to have confirmed that right for Merrick’s staff.”

The case began this summer when the 11 staffers were fired — with no warning — by FedEx letter to their homes. The UFT asked PERB to seek a preliminary injunction requiring the reinstatement of the fired staffers. PERB then sought a court order requiring their reinstatement.

PERB’s request for an injunction was being heard in Albany County Supreme Court by Judge Eugene Devine. As part of the settlement, the Public Employment Relations Board has withdrawn its court action against Merrick.

Merrick’s employees voted to join the UFT in 2007. The Public Employment Relations Board certified the UFT as the teachers’ bargaining agent in March 2008. After repeated fruitless attempts to negotiate a contract, the UFT filed for a declaration of impasse with PERB December 2009 and five mediation sessions have taken place.

Merrick Academy is administered by Victory Schools, a for-profit operator, which charges $1.36 million in fees per year, more than 21 percent of the school’s total budget, on management fees. Victory Management operates a total of six schools in New York City earning $4.41 million in fees per year.

On the operative principle that there ain’t nothing these days you can’t blame on teachers and their unions, the New York Post rushes into the fray today with an editorial apology for Christie which asserts that it was all the fault of the New Jersey teacher unions that the state was a runner-up. Really? Is that why Christie, Schundler and their proxies are now engaged in a race to fling the most mud at each other? For what it is worth, if the issue is lying, the only question is who is better at that craft: the New Jersey agreement which Christie nixed was not all that different from the New York application which came in at the top of the competition, contrary to Christie’s assertion in the Post editorial.

It seems that the Race to the Top is ending with the equivalent of a whimper — a spinning race to nowhere. A number of the most ardent blogging fans of the ‘zero sum game’ nature of the competition, in which one state’s success had to be another state’s failure, are now engaged in a mass whining that their favored home teams did not win [see here, here and here, among other places.] While the knowledge that a number of these nay-sayers were also paid consultants to various states in the RttT process might lead a thoughtful observer to take the complaints with a grain of salt, the role of dogmatic ideology should not be underestimated. What goes unsaid in the bitter attacks on Maryland’s success, for example, is that the cause of the enmity lies in the fact that Maryland charter law does not allow the state’s charter schools to opt out of union representation for their teachers. In ‘education reform’ circles, nothing breeds a sense of entitlement like opposition to teachers and their unions.

______________________________

Reggie Jackson famously said of Steinbrenner and Martin: “They’re made for each other. One’s a born liar, the other’s convicted.”

If there was ever a question about the existence of the ‘blame the teacher’ crowd, it was surely put to rest by the response of many in the self-identified ‘education reform’ community to the prospect of a wave of teacher layoffs as schools re-opened for the 2010-11 school year. Mike Petrilli of the Fordham Foundation, Rick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute, Wal-Mart Professor of Education Reform Jay Greene: the blogging boys of the educational right have told all who would listen that the education funding crisis and the prospect of massive layoffs was a good thing, and that the passage of the edu-jobs legislation mitigating those layoffs was the real disaster. With Lenin, they embrace the formula “better fewer, but better”: public schools would be better off with fewer teachers. After all, what do teachers have to do with the education of students?

Joining the educational right were the ‘all power to the boss’ technocrats that run in Wall Street hedge fund and Democrats for Educational Reform circles. First, groups like Education Trust and the New Teacher Project lobbied hard to amend the legislation to allow districts to layoff anyone they wanted, without regard for collective bargaining agreements, in order to make it so unpalatable it would never pass. When that stratagem failed, Education Trust and the New Teacher project teamed up with Joel Klein’s Education Equality Project and the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools in a campaign to kill the bill by denying it funding, opposing the efforts of Representative David Obey to redirect a rather modest fraction of the funds in other US DoE educational programs such as Race to the Top to this purpose. When the bill actually passed, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan had to broker a deal to have the funds taken from the budget for food stamps in 2014.

The fact that the cuts to food stamps will not take place for another three years gives the real advocates for families in poverty – which include congressional leaders like Obey and teacher unions – time to fully fund the food stamp program well before the cuts would go into effect. We fully expect to wage that fight without the slightest bit of assistance from Education Trust, the New Teacher Project, the Education Equality Project and the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, all of whom are well known for insisting that alleviating the effects of poverty has nothing to do with providing equal educational opportunity to the students who struggle with them every day.

But that is not enough for the likes of Kati Haycock of Education Trust, together with her trusty ‘yes’ man Andy Rotherham of Eduwonk. Having done their best to sabotage the bill and create the mess around its funding that led to the Duncan deal, they now [here and here] blame… the teachers. And yet, there is no one in the ‘blame the teacher’ crowd, right Tim?

Have you no shame? At long last, have you no shame?

If they did in fact do this, they were wrong. Such practice must not be taken lightly and must not be condoned. We believe that the terms of our contract are binding on all parties and even though the DOE has taken liberties by various means of defiance and violations, we feel morally as well as legally bound and act accordingly.

Speaking for myself only, I do not necessarily condemn every single instance of teachers taking “sick days” to attend to special urgent matters in their lives. Often the difference between a “sick day” and “personal business” day is a technicality that does not significantly impact instructional continuity or cost the employer any money. It really does not rise to the level of “theft of service.”

Given that only three days per year can be taken for “personal business,” it is inevitable that many members will simply need some days during regular business hours to attend to any of a million ordinary emergencies that arise in our complex lives. Should someone lose a day’s pay when they have a hundred days in their sick bank to be drawn upon, generally without challenge? Does anyone actually deny that such practice is common among employees in other branches of the civil service as well as the private sector?

And although people who have never taught in a classroom tend to mock “mental health” days as just another scam by shirking teachers, it is recognized by psychiatric research that teaching is among the most intensive and stressful jobs and the finest instructors sometimes “need a break,” though this concept is not codified in law. Admittedly, this is an area that lends itself to abuse, which is intolerable from all standpoints.

In some instances we are forced by callous principals into fibbing about the cause for taking days off. Here is an actual case:

A teacher with no history of attendance abuse informed his principal that he would be “taking” a “personal business day” on a Tuesday eight days later. The teacher needed to accompany his wife to the hospital where her obstetrician, a specialist in high-risk pregnancy, would perform a test he deemed necessary as the patient had suffered a serious complication in a prior pregnancy. The test could only be done in the 16th week of pregnancy and Tuesday was the only day that the doctor was available. The principal was told all of this and was shown documentation. As a courtesy the teacher had given the principal plenty of notice.

The principal said: “You’re TAKING a personal day?? You mean you’re APPLYING for a personal day!” He wasn’t joking. His voice was raised with indignation and he turned down the request. Of course the teacher then took a “sick day” to accompany his wife and for many years thereafter never had cause to either “take” or “apply” for the principal’s consent again. He covered himself suitably and did what he had to.

The same principal, by the way, looked the other way when for several consecutive years an assistant principal took the first few weeks of the school year off for strictly elective cosmetic vanity surgery.

In some cases, teachers may be hesitant to take “personal business days” simply because they would be required to inform the principal of the specific reasons for the application and the teacher may regard it as a private matter. A person who has navigated through many decades of life may not wish to hear the principal’s opinion that the teacher’s colonoscopy can be rescheduled for the late afternoon hours after the completion of the 37.5 minutes.

In a perfect world these matters should be simply settled by means of common sense and a modicum of fairness. Usually they are. But sometimes a picayune fib is provoked by a system that so often seems to “game” its most conscientious employees far more egregiously than the other way around.

More importantly, however, the researchers’ decision to use a few years of test scores as the sole measure of whether HCZ “works” represents a huge misinterpretation of the purposes and significance of this model of school reform. While Geoffrey Canada and his supporters are certainly concerned about raising student achievement (as measured both by standardized tests and other factors), the uniqueness and value of HCZ is that it is aimed at larger-scale reform which affects the life chances of all young people in a region, with charters as one element of broader improvements in public schools and social services. From the beginning, HCZ has defined its success not only in terms of raising test scores, but also by longer-term goals such as college attendance, student health and safety, and community stability. Given recent criticisms of the poor design and questionable significance of the New York state tests on which the authors’ conclusions are based, it would be incredibly unfortunate if this single study resulted in a decline in support and funding for one of the few models which provides an alternative to the overemphasis on standardized test scores on which so much current urban school reform is based.

Background

Over the past decade, the Harlem Children’s Zone’s model of combining social service provision with changes in local public schools — including the founding of two charter schools, Harlem Promise Academy I and II (HPA I and II) — has been one of the most well-known models of school reform in the country. It epitomizes the community school-based “Broader, Bolder” education reform model, a platform endorsed by both Arne Duncan and the NEA during the 2008 election; the UFT also recently partnered with HCZ founder Geoffrey Canada in an effort to create community schools in New York City. HCZ also serves as the model for the Obama administration’s “Promise Neighborhood” program, for which over $200 million in funding is currently being considered in Congress. This report is notable for its strong critique of the “Broader, Bolder” approach to education, arguing that the lack of evidence for its effect on test scores (relative to school reform which does not include social service provision) indicates that it may represent an inefficient use of public funds.

This new report was funded by the Brookings Institute’s Brown Center on Education Policy, which is known for its strong support of market-based education reform and for its advocacy of charter schools and school choice in general. Previous studies (including one by Harvard researchers Dobbie and Fryer) have found that HCZ’s two charter schools significantly outperform the surrounding district schools on standardized tests. This study is the first to compare the impact on test scores of a Harlem Children’s Zone charter school with other NYC charter schools, rather than solely comparing the HCZ schools’ impact with that of the district schools its students would have otherwise attended. Another unusual point is that in response to criticisms of the study posted by HCZ founder Geoffrey Canada, the researchers expanded on the original report’s research in a follow-up blog post. The analysis below includes discussion of all three sources.

Major Findings

The two questions the researchers address are “whether the HCZ works and whether it works as advertised.” They answer the first question in terms of levels of student achievement (as measured by test scores from 2007-2009) and the second in terms of comparing the test scores at HPA I (and later, HPA II) to other charter schools which do not provide social services.

On the first question, they conclude that (like the majority of the charter schools in NYC), HPA I and II do better than the average across the city for schools with their demographic profiles. However, they also conclude that HCZ does not work “as advertised,” because its two charter schools’ test scores are only average in comparison to other charters in New York City (which, they acknowledge, are unusually successful compared to charter schools nationally). If the HCZ model was truly better, they argue, then its charter schools should have higher test scores than those which don’t provide social services.

Considering mathematics and English language arts jointly, they find that half or more of the public charter schools in Manhattan and the Bronx produce test scores on state assessments that are superior to those produced by the HCZ Promise Academy. They conclude that “the same general pattern holds for math and English language arts considered separately, but it appears that mathematics is HCZ’s stronger suit.” This is true both for actual scores as well as scores adjusted for student demographics.

Their (somewhat confusing) table below summarizes these findings. Taken from the follow-up blog post, it combines data for HPA I alone (“Previous Analysis”) and from HPA I and II combined (“New Analysis”). Each number represents the percentage of charter schools with lower average scores than the HPA schools — this means that the higher the number, the better HPA did relative to other charter schools in the study. (For example, the “48” in the first column means that 48% of the NYC charter schools the researchers studied had lower average math scores than HPA I did; i.e., 52% had higher math scores.) The column labeled “Adj.” presents data adjusted for some of the demographic characteristics of the students in the schools (The researchers controlled for the percentages of students who received free lunch or reduced lunch, were limited English proficient, were African American, or were Hispanic, but did not control for the percentage of students in special education programs.)

Based on these numbers, the researchers come to “the inescapable conclusion…that the HCZ Promise Academy is a middling New York City charter school.” Citing their results as well as other studies, they argue that “there is no compelling evidence that investments in parenting classes, health services, nutritional programs, and community improvement in general have appreciable effects on student achievement in schools in the U.S.”

Validity of the Findings

The validity of these conclusions is questionable, due to several issues with the research. Perhaps most importantly, the researchers failed to include data about the proportions of special education students when comparing HPA I and II to district schools and to other charters. As we have noted repeatedly here at EdWize, it is essential to consider the relative proportion of special education students (especially those with high needs) when comparing schools’ performance, especially in terms of how many students require more than a few hours of extra help per week.

Another issue is their decision to exclude Harlem Promise Academy II from the original study while using the research to make claims about the HCZ model as a whole. The researchers’ explanation for doing so was “to avoid confusing the results from the newer Academy II with those from the Promise Academy and to circumvent the HCZ from competing against itself in the school rankings.” However, the response from the HCZ to the researchers on this point noted that HPA I is only one year older than HPA II, and pointed out that the researchers were willing to include four KIPP schools within the rankings. If HPA II as a separate school had been assessed using the study’s methodology, they claimed, it would have been in the top quarter of the charter school rankings. The researchers’ response was to re-do their calculations by combining the scores at HPA I and II; this method again put the HPA model in the middle of the rankings. Without access to the data, it is impossible to know why these two different methods regarding HPA II resulting in such different rankings.

In addition, the researchers used combined average cohort scores over multiple years and grades to measure charter school performance, rather than using individual student or cohort growth over time (currently considered a stronger method of evaluation). The researchers compared the average 2007-2009 state test scores in ELA and Math at the HPA charters with those at all other charter schools in Manhattan and the Bronx, as well as with district schools. (For 2007, they examined grades 6-8; for 2008, they examined grades 3, 7, and 8; for 2009, they examined grades 3-5 and 8). The researchers then ranked the charter schools using two different methods, each of which had slightly different outcomes.

In the first method, all charter schools’ test scores in ELA and Math (for the grades listed above) were averaged across the three year period, and then schools were ranked on each of these averages separately as well in combination (“Grand Mean” = ELA + Math, divided by 2). In the second method, the researchers used demographic data from all district and charter schools in NYC to create “predicted scores” for each subject, year, and grade in each charter school, based on its percentage of students who received free lunch or reduced lunch, and the percentage who were limited English proficient, African American, or Hispanic. They then calculated the difference between these adjusted scores and the school’s actual scores for each subject, year, and grade, and re-ranked the charter schools based on the average of these “difference scores.”

This methodology is both overly complicated (especially in terms of reporting findings) and less statistically rigorous than other methods. Again, the HCZ response provides several relevant critiques. First, they note that this method fails to measure HCZ and other charters’ ability to improve student test scores over time, as it uses cohort-level snapshots of different grades in different years rather than tracking individual students or even individual cohorts over several years. The researchers defend their methods by noting that individual student and cohort level data was not available to them, and argue that including the 8th grade scores is sufficient to measure growth; however, the weakness of the original data sources lessens the validity of their conclusions.

Second, the HCZ response notes that because of a reporting error on their own part, the Brookings researchers understated the proportion of reduced price/free lunch students enrolled in HPA, thus comparing it to district schools with wealthier student bodies and lowering it in the rankings. The researchers respond to this by recalculating their rankings with the higher proportions of combined reduced/free lunch students reported by HCZ (their “new analysis” on the graph), with little change to the results — however, this new method fails to distinguish between proportions of students who receive free lunch as compared to reduced price lunch, groups with significant differences in income.

The HCZ response also challenges the report’s interpretation of Dobbie and Fryer’s research, which, the researchers claim, found “that students outside the Zone garner the same benefit from the HCZ charter schools as the students inside the Zone…proximity to the community programs had no effect.” HCZ notes that students from outside the Zone also benefited from “community” programs such as “free medical, dental and mental‐health services; access to social workers and counseling; afterschool tutoring; healthy meals; test prep; college tours; after‐school, weekend and summer enrichment classes; and recreational opportunities.”

Most importantly, the HCZ response also emphasizes that the researchers’ single-minded focus on test scores in a single school as a measure of the model’s success is a serious misunderstanding of the HCZ model, which is based on affecting all children in the Zone (not just those in the charter schools), especially in terms of guiding them into college, and is designed “to support development of the whole child, not just how they perform on standardized tests.” As noted in the beginning of this post, this issue is central to the importance of both HCZ and to the possible impact of this report on its future. It would be incredibly unfortunate if this narrow perspective on both the program and on the goals of urban school reform weakened the Harlem Children’s Zone model before we have the opportunity to see if it truly “works.”

The tone and wording of that confession suspiciously lacks that Agency’s familiar ring of omniscience. Have they really reached the point of admitting that they don’t have all the answers?  Teachers are, with good reason, wary of freely-given deference to their expertise emanating from those non-professionals, whether high profile or behind the scenes, who agitate and set crucial education policy.

Teachers sense that an absence of overt criticism may be more a ploy to get them to let down their guard than a genuine solicitation of partnership. ( A field application of the concept that “you can attract more flies with honey than with vinegar”).

In his radio discussion, Secretary Duncan referred to teacher evaluation systems (which kept teachers in good grace and sufficed for generations when America led the world) as though he were talking about the Siegfried Line that needed to be breached. “Thanks to unions and school boards and superintendents working together,” he said, “real breakthroughs are being made.” (An aside: Are some team members are more equal than others?)

Still, however, “great teachers don’t get rewarded, teachers in the middle don’t get the help they need, and at the bottom…nothing happens there as well,” Duncan decries.

Definitions that won’t be pinned-down pay the price of being up-for-grabs. What does “great” mean? By whose reckoning and by what proper authority do they judge, other than the mere and often arbitrary political power invested in them?  What quality control standard is used to designate competent human resources who will intervene to assist “deficient” teachers? To whom will these mentors be beholden and how will their independence be safeguarded?

In some schools, mentoring of veterans is provided by “coaches” with scant instructional experience or class management skills but who were nonetheless hired because of their social or sentimental affinity with principals. Duncan clearly seeks to garner leadership “cred” by capsizing the dream careers of a greater percentage of teachers for reasons without necessarily distinct ties to performance accountability.

To evaluate teachers, Duncan claimed to be “much more interested in gain and growth than absolute test scores.”  (That was music to the ears of his studio audience at Sirius, but the tune was not part of his melody archive.)

Too remarkably audacious queries were posed almost submissively by the Secretary. It is doubtful that he would have asked them if he weren’t positive that he was the sole custodian of the correct answer.  Duncan wanted to know “How do you professionalize the profession?  How do you build real, meaningful career ladders so teachers will want to stay in the profession for 10,20, 30 years?” Was Duncan’s tongue “in cheek”?

Begin by putting educators in charge of their own profession. Theirs is a unique and tricky craft.  It requires creating and interpreting, not solely parroting. Don’t treat education as a “Stepford Wife” among professions. The staying power of teachers will increase exponentially if they experience respect not only in the abstract but also in the workplace.

The Obama Administration’s Blueprint for Reform of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, of which Duncan is the lead salesman, supports a well-rounded curriculum, rather than the narrowed syllabus that Duncan concedes teachers have been complaining about. As proof, he cites the government’s $300 million earmarked for competitive grants for teaching in the “STEM” fields of science, technology, engineering and math.

He didn’t address his Agency’s role in the neglect, some would say to the extent of abandonment, of a balanced course of study. The federal government, by its criteria for winning coveted Race to the Top dollars (such as standardized test scores in restricted areas), is “robbing Peter to pay Paul.”  Time and energy are lavished on targeted subjects that are relevant to RTTT at the expense of other academic disciplines that are no less vital.

For better or worse we must continue to work with Secretary Duncan.  It is to his credit that although he may not be amenable to absorbing into policy those views that clash with his own, he is neither violently allergic to them, unlike our local chancellor.

At least with Duncan we can have dialogue rather than simply “have words.”

Duncan does not come off as patronizing or condescending.  Could he maintain a cordial and non-dismissive tone when replying to the following comments of a blogger identified as “TFT” on the U.S. Department of Education website:  “You have demonized the profession and scapegoated teachers…claimed that charters can bring reform to scale…created a system of coercion (RTTT) that pits politics against the welfare of children.” That’s a harsh indictment that many classroom-based “grand jurors” would refer for prosecution.  School systems are carpeted wall-to-wall with potential evidence.

The blogger also argues that “universal health care and free early childhood education would do more to close the gap than all the school reform nonsense claims…Poverty is the cause.”

Now that’s another story.  Or is it?

After being petitioned by the UFT in July, PERB has reached the conclusion that “there is reasonable cause to believe that an improper practice has occurred and it appears that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result.” PERB will seek an injunction prohibiting Merrick from implementing its decision to discontinue the Merrick Teachers pending a full hearing and final disposition.

Last month the Queens charter school delivered termination notices to eight teachers and three teaching assistants, representing approximately one-third of the professional staff, via FedEx. Employees received no prior notice.

“The State Public Employment Relations Board’s decision to seek an injunction against the mass-firing of Merrick’s staff is an important step in vindicating the right of these educators to organize a union and bargain collectively without fear of retaliation,” said United Federation of Teachers President Michael Mulgrew.

Merrick’s employees voted to join the UFT in 2007. The Public Employment Relations Board certified the UFT as the teachers’ bargaining agent in March 2008. After repeated fruitless attempts to negotiate a contract, the UFT filed for impasse with PERB December 2009 and five mediation sessions have taken place.

“After two years of obstruction, harassment and intimidation it is time for the Merrick board to follow the law, rehire all of the staff and negotiate a contract in good faith,” said Mulgrew.

Parents and teachers at the 500 student school have raised questions about heating and plumbing problems, textbook shortages, a leaky roof and unchecked financial mismanagement. Some teachers still earn the 2006 wage for New York City public school teachers.

Merrick Academy is administered by Victory Schools, a for-profit operator, which charges $1.36 million in fees per year, more than 21 percent of the school’s total budget, on management fees.  Victory Management operates a total of six schools in New York City earning $4.41 million in fees per year.

Merrick Academy Charter School is in a state of crisis which threatens the education of its students and the very future of the school. In the recent past, a Board member was convicted of stealing half a million dollars of public money, the founding principal suddenly departed, and now nearly one-third of the teaching staff have been summarily and illegally fired for exercising their rights to unionize and bargain collectively. The scandals caused by the Board’s behavior are undermining the hard work of the staff, students and destroying the school.

We believe that the current Board at Merrick is now made up of individuals who have shown that they are unprepared and unwilling to make sound educational decisions on behalf of the school and its students. Perhaps nothing illustrates this more than the Board’s firing of nearly a third of the school’s teaching staff, including many of the best and most experienced teachers from a staff that has consistently obtained excellent test scores for the school’s students. The firings were done by Fed Ex notices sent to teachers’ homes, and none included even the most minimal explanation for their abrupt dismissal.

Why, one might ask, would a Board make such an educationally inexplicable and indefensible decision? For one reason and one reason only: these same dedicated teachers had been exercising their right to unionize and bargain collectively, and have been negotiating with the Merrick Board for two years to protect their rights at work with a union contract.

All of the educators who were fired were union supporters, and included members of the contract negotiating committee and the union’s chapter leader. This is a flagrant violation of the New York State Fair Employment Act (also known as the ‘Taylor Law’), and of the New York State Education Law, all of which guarantee the right of teachers to unionize, bargain collectively and participate in a union.

On July 23rd, the United Federation of Teachers filed a request that the Public Employment Relations Board again intervene, this time with an order enforceable in court that will compel the Merrick board to reinstate these teachers with all back pay and benefits that are due them.

The students, staff and families of the Merrick Academy Charter School have every right to expect that the Board act faithfully on the trust given to them by the State of New York. It must follow the law, it must act in the best interests of the school by re-hiring without delay the fired teachers and teaching assistants, and it must conclude in good faith the negotiation of a collective bargaining agreement they have resisted for two years. Given the history of this Board, however, we find no reason to believe that they will do so. As a result of the pattern of illegal and irresponsible decision-making on the part of this Board, we call for their resignation and replacement with new members who are prepared to act in accordance with the school’s mission and charter.

If the current Board remains in place and continue to make the educationally indefensible decisions which they have carried out over the past year, we fear that Merrick will not survive. We challenge you to stand on the side of fairness and justice and to join Merrick parents, students, and teachers in the effort to ensure that the current leadership of Merrick Academy Charter School no longer abuses their power in ways which hurt the academic success of the school’s students.

The Merrick Academy Charter School Community