GothamSchools — daily independent reporting on NYC public schools

City effort to enlist parents in politics began months ago

For months, Department of Education employees have been trying to mobilize parents to public meetings and to sign petitions in support of city political goals, parent coordinators said today.

Evidence of that effort came to light yesterday after a staff member of the DOE’s parent outreach office distributed a petition to hundreds of parent coordinators urging state lawmakers to abolish the current seniority-based teacher layoff system. City officials renounced the petition and said that political organizing would stop going forward.

But parent coordinators from schools in Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens said today that the Office of Family Information and Action’s push to have parent coordinators politically mobilize parents began months ago and that the message was spread by several OFIA staffers. The coordinators spoke on condition of anonymity to protect their positions at their schools.

In January, OFIA held a parent organizing workshop for parent coordinators in Manhattan. Staffers did not mention advocating against the current layoff system at that meeting, said a parent coordinator who shared detailed notes taken at the session. Instead, staff focused on asking the coordinators to build relationships with satisfied parents who would be willing to show support for the DOE at Panel for Educational Policy meetings.

“I felt like I was in the Twilight Zone, honestly, and I didn’t really trust my own ears, so I wrote things down,” the parent coordinator said.

OFIA officials said that they were frustrated that the panel meetings — which have been frequently contentious — have been dominated by parents angry at city policies. OFIA staff encouraged parent coordinators to bring “Happy Harry” parents to citywide meetings, according to the parent coordinator’s notes, rather than “Angry Sally” parents.

Another parent coordinator said she attended a training session a month later, as the city’s debate over seniority layoffs was heating up. One of the items on the session’s agenda was “parent organizing.” Both Jaclyn Berryman — the OFIA staffer who distributed the petition against seniority-based layoffs this week — and Melissa Harris, a senior organizer for community and strategic partnerships at OFIA, spoke.

According to the parent coordinator’s notes, Berryman led a discussion of identifying a “core base” of parents. Harris told the coordinators that they would receive a petition around March 20 in advance of the public school system’s Lobby Week in Albany. She also asked them to launch a letter writing campaign with their parents urging lawmakers not to cut state education spending and to end seniority-based layoffs.

Several parent coordinators said that while they have organized parents to attend Lobby Week in Albany in previous years, this was the first time they had been asked to advocate a specific position. The position of parent coordinator was created under former Chancellor Joel Klein to serve as a liaison between schools and families.

City officials did not dispute the coordinators’ accounts but refused to say who in the DOE started the push for parent lobbying or whether the organizing had been approved by OFIA’s director Ojeda Hall. A spokesman would say only that the department stood by its statement yesterday, which said that neither Mayor Michael Bloomberg nor Chancellor Cathie Black approved the political organizing.

The city teachers union, which has been battling to retain seniority layoff protections, has strongly criticized the DOE for allowing the petition to be circulated. Today union chief Michael Mulgrew formally asked the Special Commissioner of Investigation, Richard Condon, to examine the city’s political organizing.

“Although the DOE presently indicates that it has abandoned its use of the above-described petitions — presumably in recognition of their wrongful nature — investigation into this matter is still warranted in order to determine the extent to which public resources were diverted to this end and who at the DOE authorized this conduct,” Mulgrew wrote.

Letter to Condon 3-17-11

  • Green Hornet

    So now we begin to have a conspiracy and a cover-up. This whole ugly tale needs to be investigated and the culprits need jail time. If that includes people at the highest levels so be it.

  • Ellen

    Don’t be a dope…the DOE allows nothing….NOTHING…to go out unless it is vetted. Ojeda Hall and her staff were complicit in this effort to mobilize the Satisfied Sally and Happy Harry. But how sad it that? They had to look for the Happy Harry and Satisfied Sally. Have they found ‘em? Inquiring minds want to know.

    PS: I was at the St. P Day parade. The Mayor marched late, with the firemen carrying the 343 flags and was still booed….in hushed tones, but booed. Can the fortress be crumbling?

  • Tim

    This is freaking disgusting on so many levels. I’ll be e-mailing and calling Condon’s office tomorrow, along with my assemblyman, city councilman, and state senator.

  • http://ednotesonline.blogspot.com/ Norm

    Instead of going through this charade, Tweed should do what Khadafi does to get out supporters. Just pay people outright to attend PEP meetings to cheer for Cathie Black.
    Kudos to Maura for making this story happen. I’ve been sitting on it for almost 2 months and after we spoke yesterday she took the ball and ran with it. There is no question that this will go right up to Bloomberg. Out and out misuse of DOE employees for political purposes. Who knew what and when did they know it? I predicted that one day Klein would be removed from Tweed with his coat over his head. Smart guy. Got out just in time. OFIAGATE, here we come.

  • DM

    The DOE views and uses parents the same way so many charter schools view and use parents. Harlem Success Academies take the cake in this department. They use them like political pawns, tell them what to say, when to say it and how to say it. This is the corporate reformers model for parent involvement. The more and more our schooling system becomes privatized with charters, the more we are going to see this abuse.

  • Matthew

    I’d be interestedin someo f the more verbal posters’ views on how DoE’s behavior differs from efforts by any organized body to get their members out? I understand the specific prohibition for civil servants under the law, but from a ethical or moral view is the DoE’s effort really any different from that of bodies like the UFT or the PBA or the NRA?

    I was recently given first-person account of a UFT meeting at a middle school where the organizers – from the district office not the local shop steward – literally shouted at the teachers in an effort to whip them up into a frenzy. The meeting leader closed by stating, “I’m not leaving this room ’til I get back the signed blue cards from all of you!” The cards in question were ‘voluntary’ consents to contribute to a political action fund.

    I don’t consider that I’m anti-union or pro-Bloomberg. But it seems that everyone plays the game to advance their interests – sorry Norm, even ICE is – while all the time demonising the others for the same kinds of activities.

    I understand the Leninist imperative – the proles are too trapped by their bourgeois sensibilities to understand the glorious future that I alone can see. So I have to engage in these tactics to help them over the hump. But afterwards, everything is going to be great. I promise.

    We all ought to re-read Animal Farm.

  • Michael Fiorillo

    The ethics of the DOE’s actions differ significantly from those of the UFT, PBA or NRA: member’s of those organizations are not employed by them, and thus do not face an implied threat to their livlihood for not participating in explicitly political activities.

    The DOE can harangue their members to engage in lobbying, but they can’t threaten their jobs, unlike the parent coordinators and DOE. That’s why civil service laws of this kind were enacted in the first place, and that’s also why Bloomberg is seeking to undermine them. It clearly drives him insane that there might be anyone or anything that his money can’t buy.

  • Matthew

    I take your point Michael, but it seems you agree that both parties in the present dispute engage in tactics like those described by Orwell.

    Given his resources, I suppose the safer bet for the Mayor would have been to use a non-profit to execute the turnout drive.

    but the goal is no different, is it?

    As for the District Organizer – as it was described to me the threats were not implied. They were direct. And you’re sophisticated enough to recognize the way one teacher would not want to be the only one not to ‘volunteer’ to contribute at an open meeting.

    Clearly the UFT has less influence over parents – but the Community Education Councils routinely circulate UFT-materials and calls to participate at rallies, etc.

    As I noted above, it’s clear to me that no one is ‘innocent’ in this.

  • Tim

    Matthew, if you have evidence that the UFT ordered or pressured teachers to leverage their special and close relationships with parents into ginning up support for preserving seniority, then your assertion that everyone’s engaging in Orwellian tactics might make sense.

    Someone at the DOE demanded that parent coordinators, who exist solely to help parents, disseminate political material to parents. If you can’t see the moral/ethical difference between that and whatever happens internally with a union or special interest group, maybe it’s time to put down the Orwell and pick up something a little more basic.

    (Disclosure: I am just a simple New York public school parent with no connections to any union. I fell on some ice and later got thawed out by scientists. Your world confuses and frightens me, etc.)

  • Tim

    Matthew, if you have evidence that the UFT ordered or pressured teachers to leverage their special and close relationships with parents into ginning up support for preserving seniority, then your assertion that everyone’s engaging in Orwellian tactics might make sense.

    Someone at the DOE demanded that parent coordinators, who exist solely to help parents, disseminate political material to parents. If you can’t see the moral/ethical difference between that and whatever happens internally with a union or special interest group, maybe it’s time to put down the Orwell and pick up something a little more basic.

    (Disclosure: I am just a simple New York public school parent with no connections to any union. I fell on some ice and later got thawed out by scientists. Your world confuses and frightens me, etc.)

  • Matthew

    Tim,

    I think its best if in these discussions we try to not engage in personal attacks. It demeans everyone.

    Teachers by definition are all UFT members, and have close personal contacts with parents every day. SO there are (I suppose) myriad opportunities for UFT members to engage parents on a range of issues. And frankly, if the leadership if the union did not formally or informally instruct its chapter leaders to do so, I’d wonder why the heck I was paying dues.

    But as you note, this is just supposition on my part, not an accusation.

    What I have directly observed are the UFT reps who consistently attend the CEC meetings to engage parents on issues of importance to the UFT – such as continued hiring of teachers (e.g. class size reduction) or preservation of seniority rights (e.g. “layoffs will be devastating for your kids’ school”).

    It’s a great question whether Parent Coordinators exist “solely to help parents.” In my experience they work for the Principal and have to walk a tricky line in terms of how they ‘help parents’ if that help is not what the Principal wants to provide.

    And, as I said at the top, OFIA’s actions are not excused under some doctrine of “The UFT did it first.”

    I’m just tried of the many players in this system who seek to win me over to their agenda by claiming that they are putting my kids’ interests ahead of their own.

  • Michael Fiorillo

    Matthew,

    First, your claim that Tim was somehow engaging in a personal attack when he refuted your original comment is in fact what’s uncalled for. Rather than address his refutation of your faulty reasoning, you tried to cast yourself as the victim. A very weak debating move.

    As for that faulty reasoning of yours, you either can’t or won’t acknowledge that there is an immense difference between management illegally instructing civil servie employees to engage in political lobbying, and a union mobilizing its members.

    Additionally, you and I share no agreement whatsoever regarding your smear about the “Orwellian” actions of the union. That is constitutionally protected behavior, unlike the intimidating and devious actions of Bloomberg’s DOE.

  • http://ednotesonline.blogspot.com Norm

    “even ICE is”? What world are you living in Matthew? Of course ICE, a teeny weeny player in the UFT, “IS” advancing its interests! I just wish we could figure out what our interests are, other than a democratically run union that actually stands up for its members. But that’s a discussion for another time.

    What I as a dues paying member of the UFT have to object to is the use of my dues money to pay the district reps and the Unity chapter leaders to make sure an opposition movement is squashed. Again a discussion for another time.

    But I – and you– as a taxpayer have the rigtht to be indignant at the actions of Tweed with respect to OFIAGATE.

    Now how you equate the actions of the UFT employees, ICE or anyone not being paid by the DOE to do one job but really act as a PR arm of Tweed is beyond me.
    Do you think the best interests of your children are being served by hiring 1500 + people at a cost of – fill in the number – not to serve your or your children but to do the political bidding of the mayor?

    I think that violates all kinds of legal and moral laws way beyond even what the UFT ever does –

    What comes after LIFO ends – just as it did a hundred years ago before civil service – is pressure on teachers to advance the mayor’s political agenda. Show up at fundraisers or contribute or start worrying about your job. Believe me, when that happens, any UFT agenda being pushed on teachers will take 2nd place to keeping their job. (and show we anywhere where the UFT actually defends LIFO, which it should be doing every day.)

  • Pingback: Now It’s New York City’s Turn To Show Us How NOT To Do Parent Engagement | Engaging Parents In School...

  • Arkakademos

    The Mayor should resign and never broach the topic of education among intelligent company. And all of his sleazy toadies in the DOE should look for honest work.

Tips, questions, feedback?

Contact us at .

Word from Our Sponsor

Follow GothamSchools

RSS
Subscribe to the daily email digest:

Chalk It Up

Recent Comments

2 comments so far today

Archives

May 2013
M T W T F S S
« Apr  
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031