First Person

Week of Nov. 1: Safe schools snippets

New bullying prevention web resource

A new resource to help schools and districts prevent bullying is now online through the Colorado Legacy Foundation. It’s packed with tips, tools and resources for educators, parents, school boards and community members. Those who want to create safer schools also will find data, best practices, action steps, and success stories – whether their concern is cyberbullying or harassment due to gender, sexual orientation, gender expression, religion, race, ability or national origin.

The added advantage of this new online resource is that it organizes the best of what’s already out there and offers bullying prevention information in one place so users don’t have to sift through endless websites. The Colorado Legacy Foundation is making it more manageable for schools to expect and maintain a culture of respect and tolerance.

The release of this new online resource is especially timely, given the recent series of devastating incidents of bullying and suicides across the country. The new bullying prevention section is part of the foundation’s newly updated Health and Wellness Best Practices Guide. This new resource is supported by a generous grant from the Gay & Lesbian Fund for Colorado.

GLBT Community Center of Colorado, DPS work to end anti-gay bullying

The Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Community Center of Colorado (The Center) is working with One Colorado, The Healthy Colorado Youth Alliance and officials from Denver Public Schools on ways to ensure a safe school environment for LGBT and questioning youth who attend DPS schools.

DPS logoIn October, DPS school board members Andrea Merida and Mary Seawall and DPS District LGBT Liaison Ken Santistevan met with staff from Rainbow Alley – the Center’s drop-in center for youth 12-21 – as well as One Colorado, a statewide LGBT political advocacy organization, and The Healthy Colorado Youth Alliance.

The goal of these meetings was to open a dialogue between DPS and community groups on issues directly affecting LGBT youth. 

”The charge of this coalition is to ensure that no student falls through the cracks because of bullying.  Every DPS student should graduate and nothing should interfere with that end,” Merida said.

As a result of these meetings, DPS will now work with Rainbow Alley to support DPS schools that have Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) organizations, review the district’s policies directly related to LGBT issues, revive the district’s LGBT Education Advisory Council that has been inactive for the past three years, explore ways to provide sensitivity training and educate DPS staff and students about non-traditional family issues. The group also will make a presentation to the Mayor’s GLBT Commission regarding the group’s plans and to encourage collaboration.

Threat investigated at Valley High School in Gilcrest

Channel 7 reports a story about a Columbine-like threat. “School and law enforcement officials are investigating a Columbine like threat in the Valley RE-1 School District in Gilcrest.

The district was contacted Wednesday by the Weld County Sheriff’s Office about a student making verbal threats that an event was going to happen Thursday at Valley High School.

The Sheriff’s Office said the threat was made by a 17-year-old student.

“There’s wasn’t any talk of deliberately hurting anyone with weapons,” said Valley Superintendent Joe Barbie. “The kid was looking for a way to get out of school.”

Barbie said she learned of the threats late Wednesday evening after the school board work session.

“Valley High School was searched and no weapons or explosives were found,” said Barbie. “Law enforcement officers are continuing their investigation.”

Trial set for man accused in Colorado school shooting

9News reports on the fate of a man accused of shooting and wounding two eighth-graders outside their middle school.

A Jefferson County judge on Monday scheduled a March 2011 trial for Bruco Strong Eagle Eastwood, who faces 15 charges, including attempted first-degree murder. The judge says he won’t order a second mental health evaluation for now but that he would make a final ruling later.

Eastwood pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. Authorities say teachers tackled and restrained Eastwood until deputies arrived at Deer Creek Middle School in south suburban Denver on Feb. 23.

Police: Fake immigration doctor arrested in sex assault

Channel 7 reports on the arrest of a man who posed as an immigration doctor and sexually assaulted a girl in her Aurora home near school.

“Aurora police have arrested a man suspected of posing as an immigration doctor to sexually assault a 9-year-old girl in a home near Lansing Elementary School.

Kenneth Dean Lee, 54, of Aurora, was taken into custody without incident Friday morning, according to police. They said work by the police department led to Lee’s arrest.”

First Person

I’m a Bronx teacher, and I see up close what we all lose when undocumented students live with uncertainty

The author at her school.

It was our high school’s first graduation ceremony. Students were laughing as they lined up in front of the auditorium, their families cheering them on as they entered. We were there to celebrate their accomplishments and their futures.

Next to each student’s name on the back of those 2013 graduation programs was the college the student planned to attend in the fall. Two names, however, had noticeable blanks next to them.

But I was especially proud of these two students, whom I’ll call Sofia and Isabella. These young women started high school as English learners and were diagnosed with learning disabilities. Despite these obstacles, I have never seen two students work so hard.

By the time they graduated, they had two of the highest grade point averages in their class. It would have made sense for them to be college-bound. But neither would go to college. Because of their undocumented status, they did not qualify for financial aid, and, without aid, they could not afford it.

During this year’s State of the Union, I listened to President Trump’s nativist rhetoric and I thought of my students and the thousands of others in New York City who are undocumented. President Trump falsely portrayed them as gang members and killers. The truth is, they came to this country before they even understood politics and borders. They grew up in the U.S. They worked hard in school. In this case, they graduated with honors. They want to be doctors and teachers. Why won’t we let them?

Instead, as Trump works to repeal President Obama’s broader efforts to enfranchise these young people, their futures are plagued by uncertainty and fear. A Supreme Court move just last week means that young people enrolled in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program remain protected but in limbo.

While Trump and the Congress continue to struggle to find compromise on immigration, we have a unique opportunity here in New York State to help Dreamers. Recently, the Governor Cuomo proposed and the state Assembly passed New York’s DREAM Act, which would allow Sofia, Isabella, and their undocumented peers to access financial aid and pursue higher education on equal footing with their documented peers. Republicans in the New York State Senate, however, have refused to take up this bill, arguing that New York state has to prioritize the needs of American-born middle-class families.

This argument baffles me. In high school, Sofia worked hard to excel in math and science in order to become a radiologist. Isabella was so passionate about becoming a special education teacher that she spent her free periods volunteering with students with severe disabilities at the school co-located in our building.

These young people are Americans. True, they may not have been born here, but they have grown up here and seek to build their futures here. They are integral members of our communities.

By not passing the DREAM Act, it feels like lawmakers have decided that some of the young people that graduate from my school do not deserve the opportunity to achieve their dreams. I applaud the governor’s leadership, in partnership with the New York Assembly, to support Dreamers like Sofia and Isabella and I urge Senate Republicans to reconsider their opposition to the bill.

Today, Sofia and Isabella have been forced to find low-wage jobs, and our community and our state are the poorer for it.

Ilona Nanay is a 10th grade global history teacher and wellness coordinator at Mott Hall V in the Bronx. She is also a member of Educators for Excellence – New York.

First Person

I was an attorney representing school districts in contract talks. Here’s why I hope the Supreme Court doesn’t weaken teachers unions.

PHOTO: Creative Commons / supermac1961

Many so-called education reformers argue that collective bargaining — and unions — are obstacles to real change in education. It’s common to hear assertions about how “restrictive” contracts and “recalcitrant” unions put adult interests over children’s.

The underlying message: if union power were minimized and collective bargaining rights weakened or eliminated, school leaders would be able to enact sweeping changes that could disrupt public education’s status quo.

Those that subscribe to this view are eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. At issue is the constitutionality of “agency” or “fair share” fees — employee payroll deductions that go to local unions, meant to cover the costs of negotiating and implementing a bargaining agreement.

In states that permit agency fees (there are about 20), a teacher may decline to be part of a union but must still pay those fees. If the Supreme Court rules that those agency fees are unconstitutional, and many teachers do not voluntarily pay, local unions will be deprived of resources needed to negotiate and enforce bargaining agreements.

Based on my experience as an attorney representing school districts in bargaining and contract issues, I have this to say to those hoping the Court will strike down these fees: be careful what you wish for.

Eliminating fair share fees (and trying to weaken unions) represents a misguided assumption about bargaining — that the process weakens school quality. To the contrary, strong relationships with unions, built through negotiations, can help create the conditions for student and school success. Indeed, in my experience, the best superintendents and school boards seized bargaining as an opportunity to advance their agenda, and engaged unions as partners whenever possible.

Why, and how, can this work? For one, the process of negotiations provides a forum for school leaders and teachers to hear one another’s concerns and goals. In my experience, this is most effective in districts that adopt “interest-based bargaining,” which encourages problem-solving as starting point for discussions as opposed to viewing bargaining as a zero-sum game.

Interest-based bargaining begins with both sides listing their major concerns and brainstorming solutions. The touchstone for a solution to be adopted in a bargaining agreement: Is the proposal in the best interests of children? This important question, if embedded in the process, forces both sides to carefully consider their shared mission.

For example, some districts I worked with paid teachers less than comparable neighboring districts did. It would have been unreasonable for unions to insist that their pay be increased enough to even that difference out, because that would mean reducing investments in other items of importance to children, like technology or infrastructure. At the same time, it would have been untenable for management to play “hard ball” and deny the problem, because to do so would likely lead to a disgruntled workforce.

Instead, both sides were forced to “own” the issue and collaboratively craft plausible solutions. That made unions more agreeable to proposals that demonstrated some commitment by the district to addressing the issue of pay, and districts open to other things that they could provide without breaking the budget (like more early release days for professional development).

To be sure, many school administrators could get frustrated with the process of bargaining or having to consult the negotiated agreement when they want to make a change. Some districts would very much like to adopt an extended school day, for example, but they know that they must first consult and negotiate such an idea with the union.

Yet, in districts where school administrators had built a reservoir of goodwill through collective bargaining, disagreement does not come at the cost of operating schools efficiently. Both sides come to recognize that while they inevitably will disagree on some things, they can also seek agreement — and often do on high-stakes matters, like teacher evaluations.

How does this relate to the Supreme Court’s pending decision? Without fees from some teachers, unions may lack the resources to ensure that contract negotiations and enforcement are robust and done well. This could create a vicious cycle: teachers who voluntarily pay fees for bargaining in a post-Janus world, assuming the court rules against the unions, will view such payments as not delivering any return on investment. In turn, they will stop contributing voluntarily, further degrading the quality of the union’s services.

Even more troubling, if fair share fees are prohibited, resentment and internal strife will arise between those who continue to pay the fees and those who refuse. This would undercut a primary benefit of bargaining — labor peace and a sense of shared purpose.

Speaking as a parent, this raises a serious concern: who wants to send their child to a school where there is an undercurrent of bitterness between teachers and administrators that will certainly carry over into the classroom?

It is easy to see the appeal of those opposing agency fees. No one wants to see more money going out of their paycheck. The union-as-bogeyman mentality is pervasive. Moreover, in my experience, some teachers (especially the newer ones) do not recognize the hidden benefits to bargaining contracts.

But, obvious or not, agency fees help promote a stable workplace that allows teachers to concentrate on their primary responsibility: their students. Removing the key ingredient threatens this balance.

Mark Paige is a former school teacher and school law attorney who represented school districts in New England. He is currently an associate professor of public policy at the University of Massachusetts – Dartmouth.