Pension Crisis for Affluent School Bosses

The Pension Crisis is not really a crisis at all in most states. It is true that if every state employee were to simultaneously retire, there would not be enough money to cover their guaranteed pensions. But this will not and cannot happen since employees aren’t even eligible to receive benefits until they’ve worked a minimum number of years. It is also true that most pension systems have lost considerable value as a result of the financial meltdown, but this was caused by Wall Street speculators, not greedy unions. This, too, should not be seen as a crisis, since the values are expected to gradually recover over time.

Fearful that the current losses in state pension plans might be replaced through increased taxes, the wealthy went on the offensive, blaming the unions (which they absurdly argue are the primary political powerhouse) for extracting extravagant benefits at taxpayers’ expense. The only solution, they argued, is cutting benefits, delaying when workers are eligible to receive those benefits, and forcing workers to pay more each month to bolster the funds.

One of the ways they are trying to cut benefits is by capping the maximum income that can be used to calculate future benefits. In California, the recently passed pension “reform” bill will cap benefits at $132,000.

In the long term, this will harm most employees, since, with inflation, $132k will eventually become a modest income, easily earned by bus drivers, teachers, and other moderate income state employees. At present, however, the majority of state employees earn far less than this.

School administrators, though, will feel the pinch of this new cap.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported today that there are 77 retired superintendents earning pensions of more than $200,000 a year. James Enochs, for example, who had been superintendent of the Modesto school system, tops the list with an annual pension of $301,000. Fredrick Wentworth, formally of the San Joaquin County Office of Education earns $296,000 per year and Edward Hernandez Jr., formally head of the Rancho Santiago Community College District brings in $291,000. Marilyn Miller, retired chief of the Hillsborough school district gets $268,000 per year and Johanna VanderMolen, who once headed the Campbell Union School District, retired at $267,000 per year.

Incompetent Administrators, Not Unions, Keep Molesters in the Classroom

“The standard here is low—reasonable suspicion. The obligation is mandatory reporting, not mandatory investigation on your own.”—Alison Filo, Deputy District Attorney in San Jose, California, quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Filo’s comments were in reference to the recent filing of charges against Lyn Vijayendran, principal of O.B. Whaley Elementary School in Santa Clara County, for failing to report allegations of sexual abuse by one of her teachers. If convicted, Vijayendran faces up to six months in jail.

The situation at Whaley is not unusual or unique. One of my first blog postings on Modern School, “Adults Behaving Badly,” recounted an experience I had during my first year of teaching. When I reported sexual harassment allegations two of my students had made against a colleague, my principal’s response was to ask what I had against this fellow teachers and what I thought he should do about it. In the end, the teacher continued to teach at this school and was ultimately promoted to dean.

Recently LAUSD was rocked by several molestation scandals. Superintendent Deasey’s response was to fire the entire staff at one of the schools, casting the impression that all the teachers were suspect. Meanwhile, pundits and politicians increased their vitriolic claims that teachers’ unions protected molesters and criminals. Indeed, a letter to the editor in today’s SF Chron repeated the absurd charges that the unions are more concerned with protecting perverts than children. Yet in many cases, including the recent ones in San Jose and Los Angeles, numerous allegations had been made against the accused teachers and then either ignored or downplayed by their administrators, allowing them to continue the abuse. It was the administrators, not the unions, who kept the accused teachers in the classrooms.

In May, parents of 20 students at Miramonte Elementary sued Los Angeles Unified School District, and several of its administrators, for failing to act on allegations of molestation and sexual abuse at that school. This week, according to the Los Angeles Times, several of the parents filed an additional suit, claiming they have suffered emotional distress from the abuse scandal at that school. One of the two accused molesters, former teacher Mark Berndt, was arrested January 30, 2012, despite the fact that accusations against him date back for more than a decade.

It should be pointed out (since much of the public seems to forget or is simply ignorant of the fact) that principals are teachers’ supervisors and are ultimately responsible for all that happens at a school. When credible allegations of abuse are made, it is the principals’ responsibility (not the unions’) to follow up and report them to the appropriate authorities. And when disciplinary actions are initiated against a teacher, it is the union’s responsibility to defend the teacher’s due process rights, since not all abuse allegations are credible or valid. Yet when it is clear that a teacher is guilty of gross abuse (e.g., molestation, violence), there is little the union can do to protect that teacher’s job, nor is there any reason why it should want to.

Your Tax Dollars at Work (For the Private Gain of District Administrators)

Recent court documents reveal that the embezzlement scandal at San Francisco Unified was far deeper than the district had initially acknowledged, the Bay Citizen reported today. According to the documents, the SFUSD department in charge of after-school programs falsified “most if not all” financial records and improperly transferred hundreds of thousands of dollars to community organizations (CBOs) and into their own pockets.

Former Associate Superintendant Trish Bascom, who headed the Student Support Services Department, had several CBOs redirect district funds to herself and some of her employees, calling them “bonuses.” Lilian Capuli, a former district analyst, alleged that Bascom ordered her to falsify grant reports. She also accused Linda Lovelace (another analyst) and Meyla Ruwin (executive director of the department) of instructing her to falsify reports for their programs. Capuli and Lovelace were both fired last year after the district determined that they received unauthorized payments of more than $100,000 between 2006 and 2010. Capuli and Lovelace both argued that they complied with Bascom only because they feared for their jobs and that they accepted the “bonuses” in good faith, believing they were entitled to them.

Sorry ladies, but it’s still embezzlement and you were still knowingly complicit in it. Suck it up and accept the consequences.

Lowered Expectations: School Failure is the New Success

(Image by Tinou Bao)

In response to teacher concerns that school reform efforts were moving forward too quickly, without adequate discussion, analysis or teacher buy-in, an administrator suggested that it was okay to “fail forward.”

The most appalling implication of this statement is that failure is considered a reasonable goal. However, this statement is also a not so subtle way of saying “your concerns are not wanted, the decision has already been made. So live with it.” It also is also based on the disturbing premise that it is better to try something new, even if it is not likely to work, because any change is better than no change. After all, you can’t have progress without taking risks. And what the hell, if it turns out to be a mistake, you can always learn from it, fix it, and grow stronger as a result.

The problem is that you cannot fix all mistakes, especially in institutions like schools with deeply entrenched bureaucracies. In fact, administrators often deliberately push through policies quickly, precisely to avoid opposition, knowing that they will be difficult or impossible to reverse. Consider NCLB, which has been a total disaster, still going strong after nine years.  

Even ineffective site-based changes can become entrenched. However, when an administrator loses the trust and respect of his or her staff by ruling autocratically or ignoring their concerns and suggestions, it becomes much harder to implement any new reforms. When reforms are not supported by staff they are unlikely to result in improved learning outcomes because staff will not put much energy or passion into the changes and may even undermine them.

Lastly, though it should be obvious, this administrator needs reminding that change in of itself is not necessarily good. A cost-benefit analysis must always be done. If the costs are too high or the benefits too small the reform is a bad risk and not worth doing. Costs must necessarily include the labor and time to implement the change, while anticipated benefits should be based on accurately parsed data, not on hypotheses or assumptions. Just because a reform sounds like it should be good for students or seems to be a “no brainer,” doesn’t mean that it will actually improve learning outcomes or that the improvements will be significant enough to justify the investment and sacrifices.

Relational Bullying: How Pundits & Politicians Bully Teachers

Image by EddieS

Here’s an interesting piece on bullying Researchers Look for Ways to Curb 'Mean Girls' and Gossip that I found on the San Diego Education Report Blog. The article is posted below my comments (in italics).

The basic idea is that relational bullying is the most common type of bullying and it often goes unnoticed and without intervention. In relational bullying, rather than engaging in outright physical assaults or name calling, the bully gossips about people behind their backs, starts rumors, tries to isolate them. Relational bullying is often done by popular people, and the bully is often rewarded with greater adulation and popularity. One version of this is intellectual bullying, where a person tries to win an argument by claiming they know more, using their credentials rather than reason, or by belittling their opponent.

Relational bullying is probably the most common type of bullying done by adults, especially by adults in positions of power. Indeed, it is used to consolidate and maintain power. Administrators sometimes use it to isolate or disempower teachers who they think are challenging their authority. Teachers sometimes use it to consolidate power over colleagues. Ed Deformers, however, are the true masters of this technique, creating rumors that are accepted as fact by millions, such as the bogus claim that “schools are overrun by bad teachers,” or that “teacher experience is unimportant.” These rumors give the ed deformers power and popularity among their followers by demeaning and demonifying teachers who, in growing numbers, are feeling threatened and uncertain about their own security. One teacher in Los Angeles even committed suicide as a result of this kind of bullying, which had been done with the complicity of the Los Angeles Times and LAUSD.

Researchers Look for Ways to Curb 'Mean Girls' and Gossip
Studies Take Aim at Playground Gossip
More and More Studies are Focusing on 'Relational Aggression' in Schools
By Sarah D. Sparks

Gossip and social ostracization may come far down on the list of concerns for educators trying to prevent bullying, yet emerging research suggests relational bullying, though often the most frequently overlooked, may hold the key to changing an aggressive culture in schools.

Of the three major types of bullying—physical, verbal and relational—relational aggression, has been the latest and least studied, both because it involves less visible, immediately dangerous behavior than fighting or verbal abuse, and in part because it involved more nuanced relationships among the bullies, victims, and bystanders.

“If you think of Columbine and other school shootings, the shooters were often victims of relational aggression, so there’s a growing recognition that emotional scars are real, and we need to create interventions to address those scars and prevent them from happening,” said Stephen S. Leff, a psychologist and director of the Friend to Friend and Preventing Relational Aggression in Schools Everyday (PRAISE) programs at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and a co-editor of a current special issue of School Psychology Review on the topic.

The newer research into relational aggression is bringing into focus an alternative to the stereotypical image of the dull, socially awkward, and physically aggressive schoolyard bully: a popular, socially astute student who uses rumors and social isolation to control enemies, rivals, and friends alike. While students who physically fight tend to be avoided by peers, studies show relational aggression actually becomes more socially acceptable as students get older.

Antonius H. N. Cillessen, a professor of developmental psychology at Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, found in one four-year longitudinal study of American middle and high school students that the students considered by their peers to be the most popular were not the same as those most liked, and students perceived to be popular were the most likely to engage in gossip and social manipulation over time.


“It’s the dark side of popularity,” Mr. Cillessen said. “For the practice of education it’s pretty important, because the popular bully gets a lot of peer reinforcement. As adults we can say this is bad, you shouldn’t do this, but among peers, bullies have power. That’s a really difficult challenge for intervention research, because it means you don’t have to work only on the individual bully and victim, but you have to address all possible roles that a person can play.”

To see the rest of the article, please go to Researchers Look for Ways to Curb 'Mean Girls' and Gossip

SF Superintendent and Board Complicit in Embezzlement Scheme?

Artwork Borrowed from Fred Klonsky's Blo

S.F. school officials, including Superintendent Carlos Garcia, received warnings that senior administrators in charge of after school programs might be mishandling millions of dollars in district money. The warnings started as early as five years ago, calling into question whether the scandal could have been averted, as well as the possibility that the superintendent and school board were complicit.

Former Deputy Superintendent, Trish Bascom, had been in charge of the Student Support Services Department, and is the main suspect in the scandal. Her department was responsible for contracting with Community Based Organizations (CBOs) that provide after school support for students and had an annual budget of $20 million. She is accused of diverting money earmarked for CBOs to her cronies. For example, money that had been allocated to the YMCA was reallocated to a front group, Bay Area Community Resources, which made thousands of dollars in payments to S.F. Unified administrators. The San Francisco District Attorney has opened a criminal investigation.

Deputy Superintendent Richard Carranza said that the district acted immediately upon hearing of the allegations. However, executives of several CBOs that contract with the district say they had complained for years about never receiving federal and state money they were owed by the district and that they were suspicious of corruption in Bascom’s department. Bascom’s attorney, Stuart Hanlon, holds Superintendent Garcia and the school board responsible for giving Bascom too much autonomy and looking the other way because they liked Bascom’s ability to secure grants and fund her programs without dipping into the general fund.

Garcia and School Board have tried to deflect blame entirely on Bascom and her accomplices. However, Bascom should have been investigated five years ago, when rumors of her corruption first surfaced. In times of economic hardship, administrators should look first at their own bloated bureaucracies for corruption, mismanagement and waste, before slashing programs and firing teachers. Ultimately, the boss (in this case, the superintendent and board) is responsible for everything that happens in an organization and they were clearly asleep at the wheel.

Corrupt Admin Rips Off SFUSD

A group of San Francisco Unified School District administrators, including an associate superintendent, ripped off the district by redirecting tens of thousands of dollars from community organizations into their own pockets. The administrators were part of the Department of Student Support Services, which works with community organizations to provide students with health education, drug abuse counseling and violence prevention. This is no small matter, as the district currently faces a $113 million deficit.

Associate Superintendent, Trish Bascom, is the former head of Student Support Services, and a key suspect in the investigation. For years she controlled the department’s $20 million budget. Bascom was replaced this year by Kevin Truitt, former principal of Mission High School. Truitt had a reputation at Mission of being transparent with budget matters. With all eyes on his new department, everyone will be expecting more transparency.

Walk Through Schmalck Through--Admin is Never Wrong