The Struggle For Teacher Professionalism At E.M. Downer Elementary

 

E.M. Downer is a large elementary school in the West Contra Costa Unified School District northeast of San Francisco.  Our students are predominantly poor and non-native English speaking. They are full of energy and, by and large, eager to learn.  They are also victims of a system which refuses to teach them in the way they learn best – actively, holistically, and cooperatively.  We are a Reading First school, a Year 3 Program Improvement school, and a school with heavily-policed Open Court as its language arts curriculum. 

The five of us who wrote the “Dear Colleagues” letter found below have been at Downer for five or more years.  The district has assigned to our building a succession of principals who were unprepared for the job.  Each time we began the year with offers of help and requests for input.  When there were great difficulties with the year 2 implementation of Open Court), we asked the regional superintendent to meet with our staff.  There was a thoughtful exchange, but the only thing that came of it was that the behavior of consultants (who had been demeaning teachers in front of their students and going through their personal files) was reined in a bit.  The next principal came on board with a professed interest in site-based management.  When this did not happen, seven (or so) of us met with him and his coach to discuss the matter.  He made promises of collaboration, but never followed through.  Eventually the five of us sent a letter to the regional superintendent explaining the situation and asking that she intervene.  Nothing came of this request

This fall a number of us were called to meet with yet another new principal in August.  At that meeting, the chief academic officer told us that the district had listened/learned its lesson and that they had chosen this person because she would work in collaboration with our staff.  A short time later we were shown the video made by the interim superintendent and the president of the school board stating that they had realized that top-down management was ineffective and wanted to work with teachers to improve our district. We took all three of these leaders at their word.

As the new principal’s struggles began to show, we repeatedly volunteered our help.  This despite the fact that she insulted our staff at the in-service training day before school began.  For example, when an October In-Service day was fast upon us, I put a potential plan in her box, suggesting that the morning be given over to sessions of choice and the afternoon to adjunct duty committees.  While I told her that several of us were willing to offer sessions, I did not in any way try to set (or even influence) the content of the meeting.  She called me in, told me that this was not "my" school, and that she would only proceed with input from a large group like the Instructional Leadership Team.  I reiterated that I was not advocating for the content of the day and reminded her of the tight time line.  In the end, she threw something together at the last minute and about seven people attended the in-service day.  Ironically she asked me to present a session on completing Student Study Team (SST) paperwork, which I did.  I also offered to take a sub day or two to help organize the SST, since we had no staff person assigned to this task (and still do not).  She declined, even when I told her I would take sick days and she could reimburse me when we had more money.

Lina regularly offered to help on a number of issues too large to count, including both staff development and the day-to-day running of the school.  Mike assisted the principal and vice-principal with implementation of our discipline plan (which they have since ignored on many occasions), has volunteered to provide a lunchtime program for 5^th and 6^th graders during the reconstruction, and is vice president of our School Site Council.  He was a member of Downer’s reconstruction design team and was publicly recognized by the district’s head of facilities for his valued work on that project.  Thomas and Eduardo are mentors for teachers at their grade levels and serve as union reps.  The list of our efforts at cooperation goes on and on.

All during our efforts to improve our school, never once has a site administrator or anyone from downtown administration ever initiated a conversation with any of us in an effort to consider our concerns.  It saddens me that there has not been one person who has ever said, “Hmmm . . . these are clearly intelligent and committed educators who might have something to offer.  Maybe we should put aside our differences and have a professional conversation about what might best help our students.”

Finally, the five of us decided that we could no longer go along with some of the most problematic of the district’s mandates.  We also felt we wanted to take on some of the most school’s most egregious problems. We didn’t want to tell anyone else what to do, we clearly were not going to get anywhere in our efforts to establish a collaborative relationship with administration in this district, so the only option available to us was to simply state what we believed, what we hoped would change, and, finally, what we could no longer in good conscience do. 

After a short lull, the repercussions began.  We were told that we could not use the intercom system to announce our meetings – that, in fact, we were not to hold any meetings at all.  Our so-called literacy coaches put out an article which purported to support the heavy-duty phonics instruction they were providing in 4^th grade classrooms; despite the fact that the article did not state what they said it did, we were not allowed to rebut it.  One after another, we were called in and warned of possible disciplinary action.

Even after three of our four stated concerns were resolved (Wednesday Project Meetings, ELD testing, and add-on phonics in 4^th grade) the district has continued to come after us.  None of us has been insubordinate, only one of us could by any stretch of the imagination be construed to have had a verbal warning (and even in that one case, I was never told what I needed to do or cease doing), we all received written warnings containing untruths, and before we had any opportunity to address those inaccuracies, the district has taken the additional action of transferring two of us. 

There has been an outpouring of support from parents, teachers, and community members, as well as from educators across the country – from respected advocates such as Jonathan Kozol, Dick Allington, Regie Routman, Yetta and Ken Goodman, and Elaine Garan to any number of pre-service teachers who have heard of our struggle.  The five of us continue to meet in solidarity, made doubly difficult by the fact that we can no longer spend our days together.  Community groups, such as March4Education, still advocate on our behalf.  We are beginning to draw on the legal expertise which will be necessary to protect our rights.  It is a hard time, but we also agree with Helen Keller who said, “This is a time for a loud voice, open speech, and fearless thinking.  I rejoice that I live in such a splendidly disturbing time.”

 

 

 

                                               

5 October 2005

 

Dear Colleagues,

 

Jonathan Kozol, educational author and activist, recently spoke at King Middle School in Berkeley.  It was an inspiring evening and Kozol’s message was clear:  particularly at a time when public education (especially for poor children of color) is under attack, we as educators have a moral obligation to look out for the best interests of our students.

 

There are certain practices expected of us here at Downer School and across this district which do not serve our students and we will no longer go along with those practices.  On the other hand, many of our students’ needs are not being met and we pledge to do what we can to provide for those needs.  It is time to stand up for the children entrusted to us and it is our intention to do so at every occasion.  Listed below are some of the positive actions we will take on behalf of our students:

 

• School Governance:  The district administration, including the school board president and acting superintendent, have publicly stated that top-down methods of decision-making are ineffective.  In a very large school with a veteran teaching staff like Downer, it is vital that decisions which affect our students be made jointly by teachers and administrators.  Adjunct duty committees have now been established.  These committees need to be given the power to develop proposals within their areas of expertise which can then be brought back to the full staff for approval. It is also important that the committees be given time to meet, possibly one Project Meeting per month.

 

• After School Program:  The after school program should serve as a support for students who are struggling in the classroom.  Crucial to the effectiveness of such a program is input from the teachers who work with these students day in and day out.  Some of us hope to offer after-school classes to provide for needs which are not currently being met. 

 

• Student Study Team:  The Student Study Team is critical as we strive to meet the needs of all students.  It is a positive step that SST slates have been chosen for morning and afternoon meetings.  However, many teachers are not familiar with the SST process.  We will offer assistance to those teachers as they complete paperwork and implement classroom modifications; SST meetings can then be the culmination of systematic efforts to help children and will run efficiently and effectively.

 

In this list are some of the practices we will no longer support:

 

• Text-Based ELD Testing:  With the current focus on accountability, teachers are required to administer (and students to endure) more and more testing.  Most of these tests are ill-conceived, many are redundant, and all are time-consuming.  The new ELD tests are all of the above.  The test lacks clarity, collects information similar to that provided by CELDT and teacher observation, and severely impacts instructional time.  We will not give these tests.

 

• Low-Quality In-Service Meetings:  High-quality staff development is crucial as teachers seek to grow as professionals.  However, much of the staff development offered by our district is of poor quality.  Since our first obligation is to our students, we will no longer leave our classrooms to attend meetings (on- or off-site) which are not of benefit to us or the children we serve. 

 

• Wednesday Project Meetings:  Article 46, Section 2 of our contract states, “Staff development during modified Wednesdays in elementary schools shall be jointly designed by the schools’ principals and the staff except that the District may require a particular staff development activity during one Wednesday per month.”  If classroom teachers were allowed to collaborate, as the contract states, Project Meetings would improve the instruction we provide for our students.  District officials have recently agreed with UTR regarding this contract language.  Therefore, we expect meetings to be jointly planned within the near future. If they are not, we will no longer attend.

 

• Phonics Lessons In 4^th Grade:  Research has shown that phonics lessons are useful for most students in grade 1 and for some students in grade 2.  At the 4^th grade level, it is inappropriate to spend large chunks of instructional time on phonics.  Currently 4^th grade teachers are expected to spend 20-25 minutes per day on these lessons.  We will no longer do so.

 

It is our sense that we are not alone in feeling as we do.  We hope that you will join us.  We welcome your thoughts on all of these issues – collegial dialogue is part of the strength of any successful school. If you are interested in these ideas or have questions to ask, please feel free to speak with any of us.  We will hold a meeting on Monday October 10^th at 3 p.m. in Rm. 505 to discuss these matters in some depth.  Working together – teachers and administrators alike -- we can continue to grow as a faculty and as a school.

 

Eduardo Martinez

Elizabeth Jaeger

Michael McDonald

Thomas Prather

Lina Prairie