shortlink: http://shawnbeightol.com/blog/?p=259

We won the lawsuit against UTD’s illegal contract changing votes in May and August that resulted in the raise (step) being suspended and the IPEGS evaluation formula being changed to include 50% reading proficiency!

The court’s decision is based on the use of Votenet Evoting as being insufficient in transparency – it fails the Florida statutes and rules for legality for union elections.  I’m disappointed that the argument regarding notification was not made strongly enough and hope it will be revisited if UTD appeals. 

Results?   They will have to redo the votes:

“CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. Both contract ratification votes were invalid.

2. Both parties are entitled to partial attorney’s fees and costs awards.

RECOMMENDATION

The remedy for an invalid contract ratification vote is a re-vote. If the contract is approved, the re-vote will relate back to the original vote. If not, the contract itself is

invalid as of the date of the original ratification.”

I believe until this happens, we return to the status quo before the votes occurred (due for a raise, last year’s IPEGS scheme).

We now have the opportunity to revote on our raise.

This time, let’s make sure any increase is offered equally to our entire bargaining unit – support staff included (security, paraprofessionals, and clerical)!

We now have the opportunity to revote on the IPEGS change – do you really want to be evaluated on how students you’ve never seen read?

Of course, the result of the court will be challenged, but I think the law has shown we were right.

Here’s the decision: http://perc.myflorida.com/download.aspx/Prefix=CB/CaseYr=11/CaseNo=073/File=CB11073-Ord10-113011104700.pdf

My guess is it will be appealed.

Perhaps they will try to redo each vote separately (healthcare, raise, IPEGS, Race to the Top performance pay).

Commentary:  since May’s vote was a disguised vote to turn down our raise by promoting no healthcare increase and no RIF yet now we just received notice that they are raising our healthcare anyway, perhaps we can get UTD to enforce PERC’s May 18^th 2011 order to MDCPS to deliver our raise (see pp. 24 & 28 of http://perc.myflorida.com/download.aspx/Prefix=SM/CaseYr=10/CaseNo=100/File=SM10100-SMRD-051911080458.pdf ).

If the district can raise $70 million by pleading with the community so we can have wifi in every school, why can’t it raise $70 million (X2) for the 2 raises we have recently been refused?

Shawn

“one teacher”…but surrounded by a thousand supporting educators and support staff.

Story Idea: Major Foundation Funds Florida’s Jeb Bush Education Initiatives, then Trains Journalists to Advocate? shortlink: http://shawnbeightol.com/blog/?p=251 Monday, October 10, 2011 5:39 PM From: “sb” <beights@yahoo.com> To: sbeightol@dadeschools.net Bcc: csegal@tampatrib.com, lpostal@tribune.com, ksanders@sptimes.com, solochek@sptimes.com, mshatzman@tribune.com, dbreitenstein@news-press.com, tengstrom@news-press.com, dillon@nytimes.com, straussv@washpost.com Dear sirs and madams: I am BCCing you (5 Florida journalists who write education pieces for the larger metro papers in Florida and the authors of the NY Times and Wash Post articles referenced) in order to hear just what you have to say. My name is Shawn Beightol.  I am a 19 year chemistry teacher in Miami and have been somewhat of an activist since encountering Pat Tornillo of the Miami teachers’ union United Teachers of Dade (UTD) in 2000.  Since then I have run for UTD president 2X (being “excommunicated” by UTD for talking to the Miami Sunpost about $1.2 million in union officer subsidies coming from the Miami School District (MDCPS) and questioning the conflict of interest that established). I currently have 2 Unfair Labor Practice complaints filed with the Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) regarding union votes that 1) suspended the automatic pay step increase for UTD unit members and 2) attached a 2010 “performance pay” offer to the 2011 teacher evaluation contract changes that brought MDCPS into compliance with its Race to the Top (RTTT) application.  The charges have been found sufficient by PERC and I am being represented by a law firm that specializes nationally in labor law issues that involve union misconduct (they just accepted and will file their motion this week to represent me, so if you check you will see I am currently Pro Se status).  You can read here: www.shawnbeightol.com …just scroll back over the last 2 month’s of postings to see the evolution in reverse of what I am going to question here: The bottom line is, we “rebel” teachers in Miami (who apparently refuse to “drink the kool-aide”) have uncovered what looks like the concerted corruption of collective bargaining in Florida where the school board plays the bad cop and the puppet union plays the good cop in a horrible and large scale good cop/bad cop manipulation scheme.  From the impossible to deliver salary schedule in 2006 that got Rudy Crew his $40000 performance bonus to healthcare lies (where the union announced a threatened increase 5 times what the healthcare company’s memo actually stated, then pretended like it bargained the increase down to the actual published increase). Most recently, we have uncovered what is obviously a concerted effort to depress/suppress bargaining unit salaries…either to save money or to cull the bright and motivated leaving a hungry, desperate rank and file ready to do anything for a bone of a raise.  In June we documented what appears to be a coordinated under-advertised and misleading bargaining unit ratification to changes that denied members of their raise…but were never told that was the intent…just that the vote would avoid healthcare increases and layoffs.  Then in August, members were told that the extreme changes to teacher evaluation were due to the new Senate Bill 736 terms…when in actuality the changes were beyond 736 and were necessary to bring Miami’s contract into compliance with Race to the Top qualification terms.  Members were NOT told that they actually had a say in the changes, but were basically led to believe in a joint assault by union and school district that the changes were a “done deal” required by the new law (736).  In order to provide the appearance of legal collective bargaining compliance, the union sprung an under-advertised and misleadingly described ratification vote termed “Race to the Top Performance Pay Ratification Vote” claiming the changes would deliver bonuses for the past years work, completely nullifying and contradicting the industry concept of performance pay to be based on predetermined terms and understanding of the desired work outcomes and the promised reward.  Neither of these last two facts described what the district and union called performance pay. The reality is, they used the pay as a bribe to persuade what teachers persevered in their effort to find out about the vote and participate. The union and district bought the votes to change the contract to secure RTTT compliance and the consequent $72 million in funds. Both votes have been challenged with the Public Employees Relations Commission and the charges have been found sufficient that the union “coerced and manipulated” the vote (see my blog referenced above for links to the PERC charges and docket).  My motion to the 11th Judicial Circuit Court for injunctive relief was found sufficient and the hearing was held where I (without counsel at the time) was met by 5 of their lawyers and both institutions’ 2nd in commands.  The circuit case was dismissed on grounds of jurisdiction. I have lodged a complaint with appropriate law enforcement agencies to have the corruption of collective bargaining investigated and the fraudulent usage of RTTT funds (1st issue is state, 2nd issue is fed). The clearly documented facts should have been sufficient local news to the big local big newspaper of Miami, but after spending hours talking to the reporter and connecting her to many vocal and professional teacher/activists, she proceeded to write 3 glowing articles in a row, reducing the totality of activism, hundreds of statements and petitions, thousands of dollars raised and easily verified teacher aggravation and ire that would surely affect classroom culture and atmosphere – she reduced all of this to “a complaint” of “one teacher.” On further critical conversation with her I found out she had written the articles with support from the Hechinger Institute. On investigation, I find that the Hechinger institute participates in “studies” and series around the country (see USF’s Sherman Dorn’s documentation of their manipulation of the media here: http://shermandorn.com/wordpress/?p=2445 and http://shermandorn.com/wordpress/?p=1682)  I found that they were started up and are annually sustained by millions from the Gates foundation and the Lumina Foundation (which has donated over $350000 to the ALEC initiatives).  http://www.luminafoundation.org/newsroom/news_releases/2010-11-30.html, see also http://hechinger.tc.columbia.edu/how-we-work/our-supporters/ I found out that the Gates Foundation has donated $500000 to Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Educational Excellence, which participated in the crafting of the 2010 Senate Bill 6 vetoed by quickly extinguished Charlie Crist and Senate Bill 736.  see http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/22/education/22gates.html I found out that Jeb Bush is traveling around the country, exporting SB 736 type “reform” (which most professional educators refer to as “deform”): http://perdidostreetschool.blogspot.com/2011/04/jeb-bush-bill-gates-eli-broad-barack.html And I find out that the Gates Foundation is actively replicating what appears to be going on with the Hechinger Institute: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/answer-sheet/gates-spends-millions-to-sway.html where the Post provides a copy of a Foundation business plan that states their goal is to co-opt media channels, establish strong ties to journalists (why would they want “strong ties to journalists?”). Finally, today I read about Parent Activists groups pushing “parent trigger” legislation…only to find out that they too have been bought and manipulated by the Bill Gates Foundation:  http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2011/10/09/general-us-parent-unions_8725489.html Folks, this isn’t the democratic, check and balance approach to finding “the truth”.  This isn’t government “of the people, for the people” this is the wealthiest people in America forming one non-profit after another through which they are funneling their money and spinning their “news,” their “truth.” History is full of examples of people in needy situations being vulnerable and impressionable to constant propagandizing…what the Gates Foundation would call “Advocacy.” But the Gates Foundation and other similar multi-billion dollar resources have a message to hypnotize the masses with and they are doing it by buying out every channel of information…controlling the message and the choices “you can have any flavor ice cream you want: vanilla or vanilla.” The approach is incredibly risky. And wrong. We know what is wrong with education: yes, unions have protected members to maintain dues revenue (including bad teachers) and have promoted issues that are more related to their economics than Johnny’s education.  But the same administrative/managerial bloat that is observed in private sector is making educational systems top heavy and reliant on data acquisition and analysis to support their burgeoning numbers. The problem is these to some extent, but it is far greater due to the changes in culture and values – the stellar rise of the importance of amusement, entertainment, and sports.  The stellar rise and increase in the availability of tech toys, virtual reality, games, and social communication channels.  The continued increase in single parent homes, the cost of living and the increasing unacceptable view of “living without” gadgets, conveniences, and perqs that drive a parent to work more, borrow more, and become financially depressed. You know poverty has been shown to be so important to the ability of a student to come to school prepared to learn.  And its not just a function of having money, but having the familial infrastructure that correlates with increased income. Please help us investigate the extent of the Gate’s Foundation and its allies’ influence and efforts to undermine the democratic approach to troubleshooting our culture and jointly, cooperatively finding the solutions. Regards, Shawn Beightol 19th year Chemistry Teacher, Miami-Dade County Public Schools Beights@yahoo.com

The nonprofit arm of NCS Pearson funded a trip for former Florida Education Commissioner Eric Smith to attend a 10-day forum in Finland in 2009.

• A software company run by Neil Bush, a younger brother of Gov. Jeb Bush, hopes to sell a program to Florida schools that students would use to prepare for the test that is key to the governor’s education policy.

  Texas-based Ignite Inc. makes software being used in a pilot program at an Orlando-area middle school to help students prepare for the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, which the governor has championed as a yardstick for school performance.

  Ocoee Middle School, which has received millions of dollars in state grants to study ways of lowering costs, is using the software for free.

  But a company spokeswoman said Saturday that Ignite soon hopes to sell its early American history course to other Florida schools, at a cost of $30 a year per student.
  Ignite spokeswoman Louise Thacker denied the company had an unfair advantage because its founder and CEO, Neil Bush, is a brother of Florida’s governor.

  A spokeswoman for the state Department of Education said Friday that Ignite officials had not approached the state about its product. Mike Eason, formerly the top technology official for the department, is a member of an Ignite advisory board.

  Katie Muniz, a spokeswoman for Jeb Bush, said the governor has never talked with his brother about the business.

  Gov. Bush’s use of the FCAT complies with a law supported by another brother – President George W. Bush. The president’s “Leave No Child Behind” law forces states to use testing as a measuring stick for schools.

  Gov. Bush’s education agenda has been criticized by Democratic gubernatorial nominee Bill McBride, who has attacked the governor for his reliance on the FCAT to grade schools.

  Ryan Banfill, spokesman for the state Democratic Party, called Ignite’s marketing campaign in the state problematic, saying that is creates a strange appearance. “I don’t know where the money’s going to come from for this,” Banfill said. “These districts are hard pressed to pay for chalk, let alone to put money in the pocket of the Bush family.”

  Neil Bush gained notoriety as director of the Silverado Savings & Loan in Colorado, whose failure cost taxpayers $1 billion and led to a grand jury investigation during the term of his father, President George H. W. Bush. Neil Bush was never charged.

  http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=PvMeAAAAIBAJ&sjid=H4UEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6778%2C4556240

  

  Sarasota Herald-Tribune – Google News Archive Search
• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×8155764

  
  

  Jeb Bush: ‘For the record, Neil Bush is not involved in the FCAT business. Stop spreading rumors.’.

  www.democraticunderground.com

  Jeb Bush: ‘For the record, Neil Bush is not involved in the FCAT business. Stop spreading rumors.’
• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3232164&mesg_id=3232662

  
  

  Democratic Underground – The Bush Family ‘Reading First’ Scam– George, Jeb, Neil and Ma Bush – Dem

  www.democraticunderground.com

  The Bush Family ‘Reading First’ Scam– George, Jeb, Neil and Ma Bush

shortlink: http://shawnbeightol.com/blog/?p=228

I looked into the Deloitte SAP/ERP software contract with Miami-Dade County Public  Schools in an attempt to answer the question: “What is MDCPS doing with its money from the state for education that 66 other counties are NOT doing since EVERY OTHER county has made an attempt to comply with Florida Law and the contracts they negotiated and pay their teachers a raise for experience and cost of living increases?”

I’ll start with my correction first:

Though I was not aware of the Deloitte termination when I wrote what I wrote yesterday, I did show you from MDCPS check register that Deloitte has received $13 million AFTER their January 2009 termination, including regular payments through this year, with this year’s payments in excess of $300000 this year:

Here’s the data:

DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP	07/20/11	$155,950.05
DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP	06/03/11	$131,392.77
DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP	03/28/11	$75,087.27
DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP	12/17/10	$115,980.12
DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP	06/23/10	$101,977.82
DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP	05/14/10	$329,413.53
DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP	11/20/09	$118,231.50
DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP	09/25/09	$423,541.86
DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP	09/02/09	$91,076.05
DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP	05/04/09	$67,642.35
DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP	03/13/09	$671,223.00
DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP	02/27/09	$1,867,500.00
DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP	02/13/09	$2,327,500.00
DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP	02/13/09	$6,247,500.00
DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP	02/06/09	$427,500.00
DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP	01/26/09	$71,775.96
	Total	$13,223,292.28

Perhaps someone in the district will tell you that they are simply paying for work done in the past…but the reason we “fired” them was for work they hadn’t done, for costs they had run up. Its odd that so many entities are suing to recover costs from Deloitte, but MDCPS is meekly paying during a time when they are so stretched for cash that they refuse to honor the May 18^th, 2011 recommendation to give teachers and support staff “something more than nothing” (see PERC SM-10-100).

Aside from the Deloitte questions (such as, why is MDCPS still paying them when so many others are filing to RECOVER costs)…

The question still remains: “ is this all the reason why MDCPS is in so much financial distress that it is seeking to sell its downtown lands, cannot keep its contracts with its employees, and has made a highly questionable grab for Federal Race to the Top monies in concert with the United Teachers of Dade?”

Whether SAP is handled internally or externally, it is 2 years overdue (how much$) and the question of the cost in human power must be raised (we must have hired a bevy of outsiders to get it done…even if it were remotely possible to imagine retraining our local ITS guys to think that globally and acquire that much of a new skill set – why would they be working for us if they can do SAP now? – who is doing their job while they monkey around with installing SAP and replacing Legacy?)

Please read this in connection with the earlier email I sent to MDCPS School Board member Marta Perez at the bottom:

Thanks to Jordan Melnick’s work at TeachDade (pulled from the net for some reason, still archived here: http://web.archive.org/web/20090220154325/http://teachdade.com/ ) for the following leads:

Sunday’s article in the Herald (http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/10/14/2454659/miami-dade-schools-headquarters.html#storylink=misearch ) “The cash-strapped Miami-Dade school district is exploring whether the bump in land prices in the Omni area could ameliorate its financial woes” in conjunction with the questionable, desperate bid for Federal Race to the Top funds (http://shawnbeightol.com/blog/?p=205 )suggest that the effects of the economic downturn on MDCPS’ rabid adherence to the sinking Deloitte SAP implementation – see http://web.archive.org/web/20081220134320/http://www.teachdade.com/MDCPS-Deloitte may have been the wrong way to go when MDCPS School Board’s Marta Perez pushed MDCPS to dump the “black hole” of Deloitte/SAP (http://web.archive.org/web/20081222225350/http://www.teachdade.com/BOSS-Workshop-Thursday ).

Question: did the political contributions of Deloitte’s/SAP’s lobbyists to the school board members have any bearing on the vote to go forward and thus on the situation we now find ourselves? (see contributions 4 & 5 at http://goo.gl/2a1A4 vs. http://eac.dadeschools.net/agenda/sep07/item5.pdf p.2 “Rodriguez-Pina”; contributions 13 & 14 at http://goo.gl/jxkio vs. “Rodriguez-Pina” of http://eac.dadeschools.net/agenda/sep07/item5.pdf ; and contributions 141, 142, & 144 at http://goo.gl/tAzVm vs. “Rodriguez-Pina” of http://eac.dadeschools.net/agenda/sep07/item5.pdf, see also http://www.meridianpartners.us/ ).

Perhaps the article and information below this memo might explain the rash of this and similar recent foreboding emails:

“URGENT: Important Tax Information – Payroll Check/Advice Dated November 4, 2011– Please Post!!

---

This urgent message contains very important tax information regarding the payroll check/advice dated November 4, 2011.

---

PLEASE POST!! PLEASE POST!! PLEASE POST!!

As a result of the SAP Payroll Go-Live scheduled for October 28, 2011, please note the following for the payroll check/advice dated November 4, 2011:

· The Social Security and Medicare taxes taken from this check/advice, may be higher than previous payroll payments, due to the fact that the Social Security and Medicare taxes for expenses/benefits paid by the Board will be collected from this payment. ”

Consider this from “Teach Dade” (http://web.archive.org/web/20081001235207/http://www.teachdade.com/node/110 ) “in June 2007 — the month before SAP and Deloitte got the BOSS contract — the Los Angeles Unified School District’s payroll system issued 30,000 flawed checks to employees, mostly teachers. The problem continued for months, eventually causing disgruntled teachers to boycott afterschool meetings and camp out in district headquarters.

The point? LAUSD’s payroll system was an SAP module that Deloitte had implemented as part of a larger, BOSS-like program called Business Tools for Schools, or BTS. As of October, the BTS project was expected to cost $132 million to complete — $46 million higher than anticipated. That same month, the LAUSD School Board voted to hire an outside monitor to follow the situation. Meanwhile in Dade County, the district assigned personnel to its BOSS project.

The snafu in Los Angeles was not an anomaly. From eWeek.com:

“In 1995 Irish Health Services paid Deloitte $10.7 million to install an ERP system in three years. A full decade and $180 million later the project was incomplete and finally abandoned.The City of San Antonio, L.A. Community College, and the San Bernardino and Minneapolis School districts reported similar ERP implementation nightmares in association with Deloitte.”

ERP stands for enterprise resource planning. It is the generic name for programs like BOSS and BTS.

With so many harrowing examples available, it is hard to explain MDCPS’s choice of Deloitte. In any event, it has proven to be a $50 million mistake so far — rather costly with teacher raises in limbo. Forking over another $50 million to the same company would be unconscionable, not to mention a slap in the faces of teachers still waiting for a pay bump.

Of course, conceding a $50-million mistake is hard to swallow, too. If possible, the district should put its ERP implementation on hold and commit the allocated money to paying teachers. When the budget crisis blows over, it should resume implementing BOSS, which can achieve its purpose of making the district more efficient, but with a different software integrator.

From a Los Angeles Times editorial called “Garbage in, Garbage Out,” written in February:

“The lessons of this past year are only tangentially about SAP software; it can and does work for some companies. The lasting blame for this debacle lies with Deloitte for bad programming and worse advice, but also with L.A. Unified for the series of foul-ups that followed. If our school district cannot even pay its teachers, how can we trust that it is doing right by our children?”

The same goes for MDCPS. ”

If we are still accruing costs at the rate described here (page 8 at http://mca.dadeschools.net/AuditCommittee/AC_Nov08/item3a.pdf ) and we are now 34 -36 months beyond that “friendly” audit

The question arises: with press and reports like this http://www.scmfocus.com/sapprojectmanagement/2010/02/why-deloitte-has-problems-implementing-sap/ and http://www.scmfocus.com/sapprojectmanagement/2011/03/my-education-in-corruption-by-the-major-consulting-firms/ (including Levi’s losing 98% of sales in 2008 compared to 2007 due to Deloitte SAP problems), the recent revelation that Miami-Dade County (NOT schools) is dropping Deloitte for failure to uphold their contract (http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/26/2426580/miami-dade-county-fires-deloitte.html ), how much of the over-runs were honest technical issues, how much were due to incompetence, and how much were due to Deloitte generating more work for itself (job security)?

Finally, is this all the reason why MDCPS is in so much financial distress that it is seeking to sell its downtown lands, cannot keep its contracts with its employees, and has made a highly questionable grab for Federal Race to the Top monies in concert with the United Teachers of Dade?

Should MDCPS join with the other defrauded clients/customers in suit to recover overages for products that we are apparently still waiting to see implemented, with growing apprehension?

Please read my earlier questions and comments to Dr. Marta Perez, School Board member, MDCPS.

Regards,

Shawn Beightol

---

From: sb [mailto:beights@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 6:24 AM
To: Perez, Marta R.
Subject: Deloitte & SAP overruns and starving support staff and teachers

Dr. Perez:

Back in 2008, you attempted to bring attention to the “black hole” that the Deloitte SAP “investment” had become (I believe that was Mr. De la Portilla’s name for it in the June 2008 meeting as shown on the video here: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/projectfailures/miami-dade-school-district-and-deloitte-endless-money-pit/1226 ). Mr. De la Portilla requested in July 2008 that an outside audit of MDCPS be done. In the Fall of 2008, MDCPS hired Mr. Alberto Carvalho as the new Superintendent and Mr. De la Portilla submitted a motion to quash the audit on account of Mr. Carvalho’s changes to budgeting.

Yet, in November of 2008, KMG Auditing of Deloitte’s project implementation showed an optimistic over-run on billing and implementation (a very conservative 4 weeks).

Other sources then said it would be more like 6 months (which at the then rate of $3.5 million per month invoiced (see page 8 at http://mca.dadeschools.net/AuditCommittee/AC_Nov08/item3a.pdf ).

Here we are, 3 years later and employees are receiving emails almost daily telling us not to be alarmed that when Deloitte’s SAP payroll comes online in 30 days (yes, STILL implementing…3 years later! How much per month? How much total?), our paychecks may show numbers that will shock us!

We have heard about the many disasters Deloitte/SAP has wrought around the world – from NASA to Waste Management, to Australia.

Now we see that MDCPS problems are being offered as proof in a court case of racketeering against Deloitte: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/projectfailures/marin-county-claims-racketeering-against-deloitte-and-sap-part-one/12749

That was an $11 million implementation that they bungled and is still being litigated. They were smart enough to do what you tried to do in December 2008 when you reported that the cost overruns had been greatly understated and that the recent study showed ZERO return on investment. – They pulled out and filed lawsuits against Deloitte and SAP.

My question to you and to anyone who still cares about the truth and accountability:

how much have we spent OVER the $85 million originally budgeted to date?

Is this why MDCPS teachers and support staff are the only such school district employees in Florida who haven’t had their raise now in 3 years?

Thanks as always for your compassionate and courageous oversight of our schools, employees, and the children we teach.

Shawn Beightol

Can a Hechinger Report Affiliated Education Journalist Objectively Cover Criticisms of Miami ‘s Race to the Top Initiatives?

I question whether Miami-Dade County Public Schools’ Teacher Contract was unethically changed to bring Miami-Dade County Public Schools into Federal Race to the Top Compliance.

I also question whether the Hechinger Report associated journalist assigned to cover the story can objectively write about it when Hechingers main financial support comes from 2 institutions with a history of financially investing in the successful implementation of RTTT’s elements.

Dear Sirs and Madams:

I am a 19 year chemistry teacher for Miami-Dade County Public Schools (MDCPS) and over the years as an advocate for professional teachers, a frequent source and contributor to the Miami Herald’s coverage of Miami-Dade’s education “scene.”

Though the application and build-up was gradual, this school year’s sudden introduction of the particulars of MDCPS’ Federal Race to the Top (RTTT) program to educators was quite a shock. It involved a dramatic overhaul of the Teacher Evaluation model called IPEGS and is affecting all of our teaching/curriculum – as one blogger for the United Teachers of Dade (UTD) has said “we are all reading teachers now.” It was presented with little warning or dialogue from either our employer or our union, the UTD. It was presented via a mandatory information saturated video presentation August 19th during our 2nd day back on the job, just before the school doors opened to our students (i.e., the busiest time of the year).

It was presented as though the new IPEGS evaluation system were a “done deal.”

It caused an uproar as the majority of teachers for MDCPS found that 50% of our evaluation in the upcoming year would be based NOT on our work, but on the work of reading teachers and how seriously a student took a reading test – we are to be evaluated based on the school average of student reading proficiency gains.

Which means an art teacher, a calculus teacher, a special education teacher, a chemistry teacher, a geometry teacher, a civics teacher, an AP English teacher, an AP Psychology teacher (etc…) would now be judged 50% on the basis of kids most of whom they never see and how well their reading improved…a factor beyond our control.

Many of us were incensed and took to the social media and email to discuss this. Via conversation amongst ourselves and our employer and some of the independent “rebel” union shop stewards, we determined that this change to our evaluation system should be ratified by bargaining unit membership since these specifics described above actually exceeded the terms spelled out in the newly amended Florida Statute 1012.34.

Yet no word was out on the ratification or voting on the changes. No union townhall meetings were held. No communiques went out. Just an email August 19th from the UTD telling us when we could be trained in the new IPEGS evaluation system…as though it were a done deal.

It was only after activist teachers began organizing a legal challenge via public communication on Facebook (where 2 current UTD governing board members on the current UTD president’s cabinet were observed to be “lurking”) that UTD sent out a late email August 24th announcing the date of the ratification and the weblink where the vote could be cast…with little explanation as to the very important changes being made to the IPEGS evaluation system. Rather, much was made of what was essentially a “carrot” to incentivize those paying attention to vote in the changes – $14 million in “performance pay” was offered for the affirmative vote but would likely be lost for a “No” vote.

This was the only announcement made by UTD and it fell far short of the legally required notification for a union contract changing vote.

Legal challenges were filed with the Florida Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) and found sufficient to try UTD for violating State Law against Unfair Labor Practices that involve a union manipulating and coercing employees with respect to their right to have a fair vote on contract changes. Legal challenges were also filed with the 11th Judicial Circuit Court in Miami and found sufficiently significant to warrant an emergency hearing scheduled and held September 16th, 2011.

Funds were raised and petitions were circulated by hundreds of educators. Hundreds of pages of statements and supporting documents were collected and compiled into the legal challenges.

The Miami Herald was approached in an effort to publicize what surely must be seen as a matter significant to the public.

Yet in the 3 articles that the Miami Herald published in the last month about the changes to the MDCPS IPEGS evaluation system and the associated performance pay, the Miami Herald’s Hechinger Affiliated reporter reduced all of the controversy and the twenty thousand deliberately underinformed yet now aggravated teachers’ voices to the oversimplified and understated “One teacher has challenged the ratification with a state commission.”

This is after spending an hour on the phone with her explaining the surrounding issues and much of the following supporting documentation that I hope the Miami Herald or some other news agency will investigate. After connecting the Miami Herald’s Hechinger Affiliated Education Reporter with many professional educators known for their educational leadership and activism, all of our concerns and activism regarding this evaluation system that many, many teachers view as ludicrous, she boils it all down to “a complaint” of “one teacher.”

It was only after a second critical email to her that I found out the Miami Herald’s Education Reporter is connected with the Hechinger Report, an outgrowth of the prestigious and laudable Teachers College at Columbia University, but of recent has come under scrutiny for manipulating news organs (see http://shermandorn.com/wordpress/?p=2445 and http://shermandorn.com/wordpress/?p=1682 ). Further reading reveals that the Hechinger Report was funded with seed money and continues to receive support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Lumina Foundation. According to the Hechinger website, the Gates Foundation is concerned with “the use of federal money at state and local levels through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)” – in other words, Race to the Top programs.

Dianne Ravitch wrote of the Gates Foundation that it is “usually portrayed as liberal or at least Democratic, [but its] funding priorities have merged with those of the very conservative Walton Family Foundation. I explain this curious power elite in a chapter of my book called ‘The Billionaire Boys Club.’” http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2010/jun/10/obamas-right-wing-school-reform/ See also http://jaypgreene.com/2011/07/25/gates-foundation-follies-part-1/ , see also http://www.substancenews.net/articles.php?page=1527

Furthermore, The objectivity of the Lumina Foundation is also suspect. They were a “Chairman” level sponsor of the 2011 Annual Conference of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)($50,000 in 2010, $295,000 for 2011?) -
see http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lumina_Foundation_for_Education also see “Additional Grants”
http://www.luminafoundation.org/newsroom/news_releases/2010-11-30.html

Regardless of the suspicions of bias and skewed objectivity as a function/consequence of institutional funding pressure, the evidence that objectivity has been sacrificed is before our very eyes, as I have already recounted above.

The concerns and criticisms of how the nation’s 4th largest school district and the 2nd largest employer in Florida, Miami-Dade County Public Schools’ Race to the Top grant strategy involving the acquisition of $72 million dollars through questionable manipulation of Florida’s Collective Bargaining process rises above “a complaint” of “one teacher.”

Beyond questions of illegally and insufficiently advertised union votes, the use of unverifiable and already legally challenged Electronic Internet voting, interference in Florida’s Collective Bargaining process, and possible fraudulent usage of Race to the Top “performance pay” to reward financially starving educators for ratifying their insufficiently explained contract changes, what about the overall impact of the policies, strategies, and market forces on the curriculum the children are being served in the wake of these changes?

In the Miami Herald’s Hechinger Affiliated Education Reporter’s email defending her position, she says she thinks the “general readers want to know what it means going forward.” I can tell you – the general readers whose children are losing the breadth of education that comes with academically free professional educators as imposed testing narrows their curricular focus are going to regret this great educational experiment. The general readers who are parents of children in Miami-Dade whose teachers shift the focus of curriculum from the analytical thinking and problem solving skills associated with photography, civics, geometry, calculus, poetry, chemistry etc to READING are going to be upset when their children demonstrate a deficit in the corresponding skills that have been neglected as teachers “pimp” themselves out curricularly for a shot at increased performance pay for skills not covered by their state course descriptions.

Short link: http://shawnbeightol.com/blog/?p=205

There were 2 successive changes to the Miami-Dade teachers’ (and clerical/support staff) contract this summer (2011) – one in June and one in August, both in the last and first weeks of a school year, respectively. The busiest time of the year for teachers. This issue (busyness) in conjunction with several other factors (dealing with the Florida Statutes on Union contract ratification notification to the membership) alerted several teachers to something being suspicious. We have filed 2 Unfair Labor Practice complaints with the organization authorized and tasked with mediating and oversight of Florida ‘s public employees, employers, and unions – the Florida Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC). The complaints have been found sufficient to warrant a hearing over the allegations that the teachers’ union violating Florida Statutes 447.501 (2)(a) – Unfair Labor Practices involving manipulation and coercion of employees with respect to their rights (to have proper notice and time to consider changes to their contract – see (http://perc.myflorida.com/download.aspx/Prefix=CB/CaseYr=11/CaseNo=073/File=CB11073-Ord2-091911140300.pdf and http://perc.myflorida.com/download.aspx/Prefix=CB/CaseYr=11/CaseNo=076/File=CB11076-Ord2-091911140357.pdf ).

Pertinent facts to my allegations with respect to the RTTT funds fraudulent misuse:

1. MDCPS employees represented by UTD (teachers & support staff) are the only public school educators in Florida who have not received a raise in the last 2 years (Broward was the other at the time of the writing of the Special Magistrates report, but has since received a raise. See the Special Magistrate’s report, page 25: http://perc.myflorida.com/download.aspx/Prefix=SM/CaseYr=10/CaseNo=100/File=SM10100-SMRD-051911080458.pdf ).

2. #1 above, combined with the 2011 double hit of increased healthcare costs and the newly imposed 3% employee contribution to Florida’ Public Employees’ Pension led the Special Magistrate in May 2011 to recommend a 1% “one-time, non-recurring percentage salary increase” for UTD represented employees (see Special Magistrate’s Recommended Decision referenced in #1 above, page 21 – point 2); page 24 – point 5), and page 28 – 1^st paragraph, above Conclusion).

3. June 3 – 7, UTD conducts a contract changing ratification vote via electronic voting on their website described as “Protects Jobs and Insurance,” but fails to mention that it also declines the contractual automatic raise (step increase) for members. The ratification vote has been challenged in PERC and assigned case number CB11076 as mentioned above. Evidence of insufficient advertising includes, among other indisputable facts, the number of alleged participants in the vote – less than 4,000 of the 27,700 members.

4. July 1, 2011, Florida’s “Student Success Act” (aka, Senate Bill 736) becomes law, requiring up to 50% of a teacher’s evaluation be based on student performance data from approved assessment instruments (latitude exists for educators with students not measured by state approved assessment instruments to have less than 50% of their evaluation based on locally approved – School Improvement Plan-based and Principal approved – instruments).

5. July 9, 2011, MDCPS produces a training video about the new teacher evaluation model (IPEGS) that is slated to be implemented in School Year 2011-2012. It is shown to most UTD unit members on the 2^nd day back to school at a mandatory viewing August 19^th, 2011 (most because support staff and many counselors were excluded). It is described as being necessary to be compliant with SB 736/F.S. 1012.34. It introduces the formula that shows all MDCPS educators to be evaluated at the 50% level upon student performance data – those with students measured by state approved assessment instruments (FCAT related) and also those for whom no state approved assessment instrument is available. For the latter group, it is explained that school wide reading proficiency gains will be used, a measure that is legally permitted, but exceeds the minimum requirements of SB 736 and thus, subject to UTD ratification. The video not only does NOT indicate this, but repeatedly and deceptively portrays this is a requirement of SB 736 and the consequently amended F.S. 1012.34 (see the video script at http://ipegs.dadeschools.net/pdfs/IPEGS_Update.pdf , pages 2, 3, & 8. Also note that throughout the video/script, especially pages 22-24, the language “pending UTD unit member ratification” should have been included. Rather, by MDCPS juxtaposing the language “Use school-wide reading proficiency and learning gains” to the constantly quoted F.S. 1012.34 leaves the information-saturated viewer with the conclusion that the changes are simple compliance with statutory changes and are NOT subject to the viewers ratification – which is NOT the case). The deceptive message of this video mandatorily viewed by all teachers should be judged as much on effect as on the logically deconstructed content – teachers viewing this video BELIEVED the IPEGS changes to the extent described were a necessary consequence of SB 736, they did not realize that because the IPEGS terms exceeded SB 736 requirements in the details that they should be given opportunity to ratify the excessive terms.

6. August 19^th, 2011, UTD publishes without advertising to the unit membership a series of links on its webpage (http://www.utd.org/news/race-to-the-top-ratification-vote-august-29-august-31 ) describing the significant changes to the teacher contract as “Race to the Top Ratification Vote” but no where mentions that the changes to the teacher evaluation model IPEGS are actually the bulk of the vote material. Rather, UTD misleadingly describes the significant contract language changes to the IPEGS system as primarily a means to obtaining $14 million in RTTT funds for the 2010 year performance (see http://www.utd.org/file_download/448/RTTT-OpenletterfromKarenA8-19-11.pdf and http://www.utd.org/file_download/447/RTTT-Yes-No8-19-11.pdf ).

7. August 19^th, 2011, UTD emails teachers an invitation to a series of training meetings on the “IPEGS procedures and changes for the 2011-2012 school year.” The meetings are scheduled, planned and 3 are conducted BEFORE the ratification vote is held as though the ratification is either not necessary or the conclusion of the yet unannounced ratification is foregone (http://shawnbeightol.com/UTDIPEGSTrainingfor2011-2012.pdf ).

8. August 19^th, 2011, UTD publishes on its website without advertising to the unit membership the link called “Click here for Contract Ratification Language ,” an excerpt from the 2009-2012 collective bargaining agreement between UTD and MDCPS. The excerpt is Article XIII: Evaluation, 8 pages of description of how teachers will be evaluated. Approximately 50% of the language is crossed out with little or no replacement text. Only the vague reference to the IPEGS Procedural Handbook is made with no explanation as to how to find or access it. Furthermore, tacked on to the end of the 8 pages of Article XIII are 2 pages from MDCPS’ post-facto application for 2010-2011 Performance Pay (see http://shawnbeightol.com/2010-11PerfPayProp.pdf ) – the fact that the content of which had never been seen before by MDCPS teachers coupled with the disjunctive nature of the material (terms of Performance Pay for the past year gone by attached without transition or explanation to the terms of the upcoming years’ proposed changes to the contract language based teacher evaluation system (IPEGS)) and the language used to describe the vote “What a “YES” vote means: • $14 million from last year’s Race to the Top grant funds will be distributed to teachers in the UTD Bargaining Unit” (RTTT-Yes-No document given in #6 above) suggests that the ratification vote had little to do with ratifying clearly understood significant changes to contract language and work conditions and more to do with enticing financially starved employees (see #s 1-2 above) to accept without analysis or criticism the significant changes in return for a few hundred dollars each under the guise of “Performance Pay.” See below (appendix A) for criticism of this so called “Performance Pay.”

9. Between August 19^th and August 29^th, 2011, concerned and watchful teachers begin inquiring into the IPEGS changes with both the MDCPS and UTD personnel. Upon realization by August 22^nd, 2011 (the first day of school) that a ratification vote SHOULD be conducted, activist teachers begin collecting evidence of what appears to have been intended as an unnoticed ratification vote (allowing a select group of bargaining unit members to participate “by invitation only”). UTD executive board members observed “lurking around” the social media conversation (UTD’s board members Steve Goldman and Tom Lander on Facebook) are speculated to be the cause for #10:

10. August 24^th, 2011, UTD puts out an email to teachers via school email announcing the ratification vote. The email contains no explanatory information other than links to the information listed above in #6. The email is sent 2 business days before the vote (though UTD had signed the agreement months earlier, though UTD had sent 2 other emails on 8/19/11 – one regarding professional leave, the other regarding the ratification related IPEGS training described in #7 above). The email lacks the minimum language required by Florida law to announce a union ratification vote (see CB11073 http://perc.myflorida.com/download.aspx/Prefix=CB/CaseYr=11/CaseNo=073/File=CB11073-Ord2-091911140300.pdf ). The email is sent during the busiest week of school. The email is not sent to the entire bargaining unit as required by Florida law on union ratification votes (see CB11073 and FAC 60CC-4.002, see https://www.flrules.org/gateway/ruleno.asp?id=60CC-4.002 ). No other public notification of the vote is given as described in FAC 60CC-4.002. As the vote is scheduled to be conducted by Evote from the UTD website, no ballots are mailed or distributed, no polling stations are set up in the employee workplace. The effect is that only those UTD members who are “in the loop” and sufficiently motivated will be aware of the ratification, and few will actually know the extent of the changes pending ratification beyond the obtainment of “performance pay.” See http://shawnbeightol.com/karensinsufficientnoticeemail.pdf

11. No other discussion or fulfillment is known of the Special Magistrate’s recommendation (#2 above) to provide UTD bargaining unit members with a one time salary increase. Furthermore, the application of Federal RTTT funds to teachers a) fails to fulfill the Special Magistrate’s recommendation in that it does nothing for the support staff that are also in the bargaining unit and b) represents a misuse of the assumed intention of “performance pay” – pay offered to “incentivize” a particular work behavior/production (see Appendix A) according to predetermined criteria. MDCPS utilizes Federal RTTT funds under the guise of performance pay to fulfill a recommendation proceeding from the Special Magistrate consequent to an Impasse Hearing of the Collective Bargaining process. The recommendation is for a no-strings attached one-time percentage salary increase since MDCPS teachers are the only teachers in Florida who have not had a raise in the last 2 years but have been subjected to cost of living increases and a new 3% reduction in salary for pension contributions (see #’s 1-3 above).

12. I question if the use of Federal Race to the Top funds as so called 2010-2011 “Performance” Pay is rather an improper bribe/enticement used by MDCPS and UTD to ensure the passage of the necessary changes to the collective bargaining agreement which exceed the minimum terms of SB 736 in order to bring about MDCPS compliance with the RTTT application/scope of work in order that MDCPS may access the $72 million in Federal RTTT funds. Furthermore, as described in #11, aren’t these Federal RTTT funds also being used, not as true performance pay, but to avoid non-compliance with the Special Magistrates recommendation for a no-strings attached (i.e., NOT performance pay) salary increase?



shortlink: http://shawnbeightol.com/blog/?p=198

A couple questions regarding Miami-Dade County Public School ’s September 23rd distribution of “Performance Pay”:

1) How can it be performance pay if the performance measurements aren’t expressed ahead of time?

Performance Pay is described as

a) In the medical field, “a system of reimbursement that pays clinicians bonuses based on predetermined performance measures” - http://www.p4presearch.org/node/36 , or

b) Again, in the medical field, “Financial rewards (or penalties) for meeting or failing to meet predetermined quality measures are expected to lead to improved quality of care” – http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home6&CONTENTID=30254&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm

c) In Agriculture, “based on a specific accomplishment-reward connection understood by both management and workers,” “workers understand ahead of time the precise relationship between performance and the incentive reward,” “specific circumstances for eliminating incentives should be clearly related to the incentive and articulated ahead of time,” “tell employees how much they are earning…[they] did not find out what the piece rate was until the end … when they got paid,” workers must show “complete understanding of quality issues ahead of time…,” and “At minimum, all workers need to know what is expected of them and how their performance will translate into pay. It helps when the incentive plan is presented to workers for review and comments before implementation” – http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/ucce50/ag-labor/7labor/08.pdf

and

d) In Business in general, “A clear system of performance appraisal, with defined criteria that are understood by the employee and regularly scheduled meetings must be in place.” – http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/small/Di-Eq/Employee-Compensation.html

2) If it is “performance pay,” why wasn’t it announced ahead of time – both the amount and the criteria for earning it?

3) If it is “performance pay,” why do the recently revealed terms of MDCPS’ “performance pay” defy industry practice? Consider “Employees must have control over their performance. If employees are overly dependent on the actions and output of other employees or processes, they may have little control over their own performance” – http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/small/Di-Eq/Employee-Compensation.html How is it, for example, that Ferguson Science teachers worked SO hard last year to bring up Ferguson Science Scores (see the Herald at http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/06/06/2254308/dade-students-see-science-fcat.html ), yet were evaluated secretly (it wasn’t announced ahead of time) that science teachers evaluations for “performance pay” would be based on average MATH scores: “The Mathematics/Science teachers are eligible if the school improves in Mathematics proficiency, increases the percent of student showing learning gains, or increases in performance for students in the lowest 25 percent” – http://racetothetop.dadeschools.net/

4) If it is “performance pay” for 2010-2011, what is it doing TACKED on to the 2011-2012 Contract language change regarding Teacher Evaluations for the upcoming year? Did someone accidentally “virtual” staple it to the wrong “virtual” document? Why wasn’t it voted on separately from the 2011-2012 Contract change? What is its function there? What performance is it measuring? Is it really a reward for teachers (those that knew) voting in the excessive strict evaluation model called IPEGS? See last two pages of http://www.utd.org/file_download/451/RTTTContractRatificationVote8-22-11.pdf . The language used here (http://www.utd.org/file_download/447/RTTT-Yes-No8-19-11.pdf ) suggests that voting affirmative on the UTD Evote page is a vote to get bonus pay when in fact this is just money that Florida Public Employees Relations Commission’s Special Magistrate recommended delivering to educators already (with NO strings attached) ) – see #’s 5 & 7 below.

In fact, the affirmative vote on UTD’s Evote page actually delivers a change in the contract language to the Teacher Evaluation model (IPEGS) that is more strict, more extreme than what Florida’s newly modified statute (1012.34) requires (modified by Senate Bill 736 in July 2011). This change now makes MDCPS eligible to participate in the Federal Race to the Top program and gains MDCPS $72 MILLION. This change couldn’t have occurred without teacher/support staff voting it in, highly unlikely had it been properly explained and advertised since it puts excessive restrictions/stress on teachers in their evaluation and does NOTHING for support staff. Furthermore, the superficial mentioning of IPEGS here (http://www.utd.org/file_download/447/RTTT-Yes-No8-19-11.pdf ) suggests that the terms of the IPEGS changes are provided in the proposed contract changes, but they are NOT (see http://www.utd.org/file_download/451/RTTTContractRatificationVote8-22-11.pdf ). Rather, the changes proposed are simply “crossed-out” terms from the original. The employee is told nowhere of the actual changes and would only know if he/she studied the misleading MDCPS video presentation that on August 19th, 2011 outlined the IPEGS changes as though they were already in place, already ratified (see http://ipegs.dadeschools.net/pdfs/IPEGS_Update.pdf ). Therefore, upon analysis of the language UTD used to describe the ratification vote, the manner it was advertised and conducted, one can only conclude that the Aug 29-31 ratification vote was to deliver a bonus for the performance of affirming the insufficiently advertised/noticed and under-explained IPEGS contract language change.

5) If it isn’t “performance pay,” what is it? MDCPS likes to crow that MDCPS is the “only county in Florida that gave performance pay for 2010.” Could it be that it is actually MDCPS’ tricky method of complying with the Special Magistrate’s directive to give employees “something” (pp. 21 & 24), since MDCPS is actually the only District that has NOT moved its educators along their steps (raises) for the last 2 years? Consider: “It will also be the only District [in Florida ]…to not receive an increase in two out of the last three years” – http://www.utd.org/file_download/370/PERC+M-DCPS+and+UTD+SM-2010-100+Decision+5-11.pdf

6) Is it “fair” and legal (under collective bargaining) for the inequitable criteria used to discriminate between teachers on the same salary schedule, with the same evaluation model (2010 IPEGS), without published evaluation criteria? Though all teachers were theoretically eligible for “Bucket A,” only those “core content area specific and instructional staff in Reading/Language Arts/Social Studies and Math/Science” were eligible for “Bucket B,” and only “Reading/Language Arts or Math teachers” were eligible for “Bucket C,” and only “Reading/Language Arts or Math teachers” with 3 years of data were eligible for “Bucket D.” This means, apart from actual teaching performance (which had not been defined or communicated to teachers ahead of time), many teachers were only eligible for the $500 “Bucket A,” while other teachers were eligible for $26,500. In other words, the performance being rewarded secretly here was having chosen to teach a particular subject at a particular school. I don’t think this so called “performance pay” is legal in terms of collective bargaining.

7) Why isn’t MDCPS capable of fulfilling its obligation to provide the “support for teachers [, which] is vital if the public expects them to produce quality education…It’s an obligation that Florida citizens even placed in their constitution in Article IX, Section 1: ‘[T]he education of children is a fundamental value of the people of the State of Florida. . . . . Adequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools that allows students to obtain high quality education….’ This ‘high quality’ is seen, for example, by a top 5 ranking given to Florida schools. Making and keeping it that way for the welfare of the citizens of Miami-Dade County is obviously the ongoing responsibility of the District (pp. 20 & 21, http://www.utd.org/file_download/370/PERC+M-DCPS+and+UTD+SM-2010-100+Decision+5-11.pdf )”

Aside from financial cuts, which have affected ALL other counties in Florida, including the 7 other urban districts (“The ‘global economic crisis’ cannot be the sole answer to everything that faces the District….their counterparts in other school districts have received…something”), what has MDCPS been doing with the money? Could it have something to do with the huge and criticized investment of the district in SAP/Enterprise software? (see http://www.zdnet.com/blog/projectfailures/miami-dade-school-district-and-deloitte-endless-money-pit/1226 ). You might say that’s 2 years old…yeah, but so is the implementation. We are just now seeing SAP implementation of the payroll data on our employee portals. How bad is it? Is it related to the numerous law suits and complaints being filed by fired MDCPS employees? (see http://itslawsuit.wordpress.com/page/2/ ).

Regardless as to my limited speculation as to why, there must be a reason why 66 other counties can deliver the requisite increases to pay for teachers in Florida all affected by the same funding formula and the same economy.

I guess my final question is, why isn’t the media interested in this loose accountability with Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Funds in a political and economic climate such as this one where conservatives are rightfully clamoring against poorly accounted public grants and bailouts…and our own MDCPS seems to be playing fast and loose with ARRA Race to the Top funds to bailout their inability to invest in their teachers?

“How can it be performance pay?” It is…but the performance it rewards is the deceptive ratification of a Teacher Evaluation model that exceeds the requirements of Florida ’s newly amended F.S. 1012.34 (affected by July’s passage of the “Student Success Act,” Senate Bill 736). MDCPS’ excessive contract language changes exceed SB 736 because MDCPS requires immediate student performance data as 50% of all educators evaluations, even though SB 736 only required that for the educators for whom FCAT data is available. The others could be reduced to 20-40%, depending on their role. Furthermore, SB 736 provides latitude at the SCHOOL LEVEL to determine the measures of a teacher’s effectiveness (expressed in “goals of the school improvement plan and approved by the school principal”) – suggesting local input at the School Advisory Council level for choosing appropriate measure of teacher effectiveness.

Regards,

Shawn Beightol

Folks:

I stood up in the circuit court Friday to plead with the circuit court to intervene on behalf of teachers (and students whose curriculum is being reshaped by the economic incentives) on the matter of the IPEGS evaluation system.

Against me met 4-5 UTD and MDCPS lawyers.

Besides their access to legal staffs and online “case law” history (a searchable encyclopedia of previous cases…think google, without the junk), they had one thing I didn’t have and that money couldn’t buy – experience.

I did my best, as the 7 or so teachers who came and supported me will tell you (and to them: “thank you, thank you, thank you for watching my back!”

The opposition combined, filing their motions to dismiss my case at the last minute Thursday.  They filed for several reasons, but the one that they used potently was that the circuit court judge did not have jurisdiction.  They convinced the judge that this was simply a matter of a collective bargaining disagreement – the realm of PERC – Florida’s Public Employee Relations Commission.  They are set up to arbitrate/mediate/regulate between public employers, public employees, and the employee organizations (e.g. UTD).

I couldn’t seem to make the judge see that the collective bargaining aspect, the unfair labor practice part, was a separate issue to be dealt with by  PERC.  That his job was simply to recognize the merit of that action with PERC and to protect against the present threat to the teachers and children of Miami-Dade (financial and career-wise to educators, curriculum-wise to the children whose teachers are de-emphasizing state defined curriculum as we all become “reading teachers”).

The defendants (MDCPS & UTD) raised several other reasons why the case should be dismissed – they claimed there was no irreparable harm if the judge dismissed my request to intervene and the potential loss of $14 million if the judge did grant my request.  Channel 10 News caught all this on tape as they were there videoing (thank them, they were the only media that responded).

I tried to show that from the district’s own documents (see http://www.fldoe.org/arra/pdf/Dade.pdf p. 75) “the incorporation of student achievement data within teacher and principal evaluation systems [would be used] to make human capital decisions related to teachers and principals with a focus on placement and professional development support.”  That these decisions extended to “salary compensation, promotion, retention, [and] removal…” so that diverse manner of irreparable harm would occur if he did not intervene.

But the plaintiff’s objected and the judge agreed with “why is this my jurisdiction?”  to which I kept returning to this:  a) it is not collective bargaining, but the merit of my complaint about the collective bargaining that requires you to act to protect individuals from the school board’s threatened actions b) that state statutes 447.507 and 447.509 provide for circuit court injunctive relief and c) that UTD contradicts its own parent union, the FEA, who just filed a similar motion for injunctive relief IN THE SAME COURT (2nd Judicial Circuit Court – see http://www.meyerandbrooks.com/documents/Robinson%20vs%20Robinson/Robinson_v_Robinson_Complaint.pdf )

Then I attempted to come back to the $14 million – to point out that it wasn’t actually performance pay since the criteria wasn’t published before the performance – only AFTER as it was tacked on to the end of the IPEGS contract changes AND that it wasn’t budgeted for 2010-2011 performance pay (!!!! see p. 80 of http://www.fldoe.org/arra/pdf/Dade.pdf ).

But UTD/MDCPS lawyers objected and the asked the judge to rule, cutting me off, cutting off the revelation before the TV camera of this latter damaging point.

And the judge ruled to dismiss.

As quick as that.

So tomorrow I will follow the direction of the court and file a motion for injunction with the Public Employees Relations Commission.

You have the right to do this too, if you like.  You could file claiming that
1)  the vote was confusing because it lumped together the so called “performance pay” with the drastic changes to our IPEGS contract language – a combination that wasn’t explained anywhere other than the pointedly biased “YES vote-NO vote” page.

2)That the neither the union nor the district explained we were voting for a contract language change that implemented the IPEGS extreme implementation of SB 736.

3) That the vote was not advertised well or clearly.  That you did not see the single email Karen sent out 2 business days before the vote.

4) That you had no access to email or assumed the vote was only for UTD members since the email did not say “open to all members of the bargaining unit.”

5) That there wasn’t time in the first week of the school to meet with your union reps nor your employer to have your questions answered, including why/how the 2010 performance pay could/should be tacked on to IPEGS evaluation language changes, that it couldn’t be a performance incentive if it was published AFTER the evaluation criteria was changed and measured.

If you wish to do this, you can fill out PERC’s form at
http://perc.myflorida.com/forms/Form_16_-_Charge_Against_Union.pdf

and fax it to “The Clerk of PERC” at 850-488-9704

You could send in 1 complaint each school if you fax yours together with other employees from your school.  See if you can get a security guard or paraprofessional or teacher without school computer access to acknowledge in writing they didn’t see the single email sent out notifying of the ratification vote.

Be aware this is a legal step and your name will be public record that you have filed a complaint against UTD if you choose to do this.

Regards,

Shawn Beightol