CPD IN THE NEWS

New Yorkers need policies that would help them balance work and family responsibilities, according to a report released today by New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer, in partnership with A Better Balance.

  The report, “Families and Flexibility: Building the 21st Century Workplace,” is based on a survey of more than 1,100 New Yorkers working in a broad range of industries and provides a follow up to Comptroller Stringer’s report, “Families and Flexibility,” from June 2014.   The online survey, while not scientific, asked workers in all five boroughs about:   ·         The availability of flexible work arrangements; ·         How comfortable they are requesting flexible schedules; ·         The need for paid family leave; and ·         For “shift workers,” the predictability of their work schedules.   “No New Yorker should ever have to choose between keeping their job and caring for their family,” said Comptroller Stringer. “With policies like FlexTime, paid family leave, and advanced notification of schedules, we can give workers the tools they need to address their personal and professional responsibilities.”   Flexible work arrangements, which allow employees to work outside the traditional 9-to-5 schedule and from locations other than their offices, are one of the most effective ways to help individuals establish a work-life balance. Flexible work arrangements also help businesses boost their bottom line by improving morale and minimizing turnover.   But, nearly half of workers surveyed do not have access to flexible work arrangements.   Just as troubling, respondents who had requested flexible work arrangements in the past reported that they had experienced missed promotions, negative reviews, and belittling comments.   Among respondents without office-wide policies on flexible scheduling:   59% were “uncomfortable” or “very uncomfortable” asking for FlexTime; and   71% said they would be more likely to ask for flexibility if everyone in their workplace had the right to request it.   People who did have flexible work arrangements reported that it allowed them to better manage their lives. For example, one respondent was able to complete a Master’s program thanks to FlexTime, while another was able to care for her father during the last six weeks of his life without worrying about losing her job.   Comptroller Stringer calls on Congress to pass the Flexibility for Working Families Act and on Albany and City Hall to enact local “right-to-request” laws   These laws – which are sponsored by Representative Carolyn Maloney in Congress and Assemblywoman Nily Rozic and State Senator Daniel Squadron in Albany – would create a framework for employees to discuss FlexTime with their bosses without fear of retaliation.   “New Yorkers shouldn’t be intimidated or fearful when asking for flexibility in their schedules,” Comptroller Stringer said. “That’s why it is critical that we pass right-to-request legislation which would enable employees to discuss FlexTime without fear of retaliation. New Yorkers should be able to take their son to the doctor, pick their daughter up from school, or care for their elderly parents without having to worry about their jobs.”   The Comptroller’s survey also found strong support for paid family leave, which allows new parents to bond with their children and provides support for individuals caring for sick family members:   80% of respondents support a paid family leave system funded by a small employee payroll deduction, as state legislation in Albany has proposed; and   86% support equal amounts of paid family leave for both mothers and fathers.   A 2011 study of California’s program by the Center for Economic and Policy Research shows that paid family leave helps employees care for their loved ones, and is also good for business. Over 89% of employers reported it had a “positive effect” or “no noticeable effect” on productivity, profitability, turnover, and employee morale.   This legislation, sponsored by Assemblywoman Catherine Nolan and State Senator Joseph Addabbo, Jr., would create a state-wide paid family leave insurance system, which would be funded by a small employee payroll deduction.   “Two countries in the world don’t have paid family leave: New Guinea and the United States,” the Comptroller said, referring to a study by the International Labor Organization. “That needs to change. Mothers and fathers should have the opportunity to bond with their newborns, and all workers should be able to care for sick family members without fear of losing their job. While this issue should be addressed at the federal level, we can and must take steps now in Albany to support paid family leave for all New Yorkers.”   The survey found that among “shift workers,” whose schedules often change week-to-week, 18% receive their schedule only a day in advance, with some respondents reporting that they often don’t know their schedule until the day of—or even during their shift.   This uncertainty prevents workers from scheduling day care for their kids, providing elder care for their loved ones, and furthering their own education.   Among these workers:   Nearly one-fifth receive their schedules a mere 24-hours before their shift begins; and   Almost one-third reported retaliation after requesting schedule changes.   “Advance notification of schedules isn’t a perk – it’s a basic necessity for millions of Americans who deserve to know when they need to clock in so that they can plan their lives accordingly,” Stringer said. “Enacting this as standard workplace policy is long overdue."   “Now more than ever, so many workers are struggling to juggle the responsibilities of their jobs with the demanding tasks that come with having a family. In a city as high-paced as New York, that battle is only intensified, and no one should be forced to have to ultimately choose between their job and their family.  I commend Comptroller Stringer for not only providing us with hard evidence that proves flexible work arrangements really are needed in our city, but for putting forth recommendations that can help us one day make that a reality,” said Senator Addabbo, Jr.   “Everyone has the right to strike a balance between work and their personal lives, so they can plan to take care of important issues, including healthcare, education and childcare matters,” added Senator Jose Peralta. “Flexible scheduling creates a win-win scenario for both employers and workers. Employees perform at their best when they are free from the worry of finding time to manage all aspects of their personal and professional lives. I want to thank the City Comptroller Scott Stringer for taking an important step towards facilitating the balance between one’s work schedule and one’s private life.”   “With flexible work hours, individuals will no longer have to choose between work and their family,” State Senator Toby Stavisky said. “The Comptroller’s findings show how truly beneficial flexible work arrangements can be, not only for the employee, but employers as well. I applaud Comptroller Stringer for advocating for a better work-life balance for city workers.”   "Flexible work schedules are important to allowing parents and families the ability to coordinate and plan," said State Senator Daniel Squadron. "I'm proud to carry legislation giving workers the right to request flexible work schedules, as well as better understand the feasibility of broader implementation, along with Assemblymember Rozic. I thank City Comptroller Stringer and colleagues for continued focus on this issue for families."   “Right to Request legislation helps hardworking New Yorkers to negotiate non-traditional hours with their employers in order to accommodate their personal needs and ultimately work more effectively and efficiently.  Flexible Work Arrangements benefit employees, businesses, and New York City as a whole, and I am proud to support this legislation,” said Assemblyman Michael DenDekker.   “New York is moving towards the economy of the future, but in many ways, we’re still operating under the rules of the workplace of the past,” said Assemblyman Francisco Moya, Chair of the Subcommittee on Workplace Safety. “Flexible work arrangements give workers, especially single working parents and those who care for elderly relatives, the flexibility they need to prioritize both work and family. New York must create an environment that is as hospitable to working families as possible. I commend Comptroller Scott Stringer for boldly championing the important, but oft-overlooked issue of work-life balance.”   “When a significant portion of the workforce is made up of working parents, caregivers, and students who find themselves unable to achieve work-life balance, we must consider implementing flextime policies that reflect changing workforce dynamics. As the sponsor of 'Right to Request' legislation, I am proud to see us moving in a direction that recognizes the benefits of flexible working arrangements. I thank Comptroller Stringer for his leadership on this issue, and I call on my fellow State Legislators to pass this bill come January,” said Assemblywoman Nily Rozic.   "Flex Time presents a great opportunity for the employers and workers of New York City.  Not only would flexible work hours allow for employees to meet their obligations outside of the workplace, but giving them the opportunity to work outside of normal 9 to 5 business hours could greatly reduce traffic congestion during the rush hour commute.  Giving working New Yorkers the time to take care of aging relatives as well as their children allows them to meet their own needs and also provides new means to foster greater productivity," said Assemblyman David Weprin.   "Hardworking New Yorkers should be given the opportunity of Paid Family Leave. Employees perform their best when they know their employer is on their side and that they and their families are cared for. I thank Comptroller Scott Stringer for conducting this survey and his commitment to creating a fair workplace environment for every working individual,” said City Council Member Elizabeth Crowley.   "A one-size-fits-all approach to the work day is outmoded and unfair to hardworking New Yorkers who serve as caretakers for elderly, disabled and young family members," said City Council Member Daniel Dromm. "I applaud Comptroller Stringer's efforts to revise and reform this outdated model and look forward to working with him to implement his progressive vision for New York City families."   "Comptroller Stringer's report shows the urgent need for action to make sure working New Yorkers have schedules that work for their lives and their families. I was especially struck by the retail worker who said 'There are no words to describe the frustration and anxiety that comes from not knowing my schedule for the next week and the inability to plan my life and finances.' I look forward to supporting legislation that gives hard-working New Yorkers schedules that work," said City Councilmember Brad Lander.   “Flexible work arrangements benefit both employers and employees. They allow employers to maximize the productivity of work hours while providing workers with a reasonable work and home life balance. A 21st Century workplace needs this flexibility so company policies can be made to fit the unique circumstances of individual workers and employer settings,” said City Council Member Mark Levine.    “I believe that we have all at one time or another experienced the unexpected and, as a result, we do whatever is necessary to deal with the situation. Providing New Yorkers with flexibility in their jobs and/or prospect of flexibility would be of great support. Comptroller Stringer is raising awareness around an issue that everyone – employee and employer can relate to.” – City Councilwoman Rosie Mendez.   “In today’s world, many people do not have the same 9-to-5 availability that was common for so long,” said City Council Member Donovan Richards. “With the amount of college students who must work through school, single mothers and parents who must both work to survive in this city, we need to accommodate a variety of different schedules for our residents. Too many New Yorkers are being burdened by school loans and day care fees to not come together to account for the vastly changing dynamic in homes today.”   “New Yorkers across all professions are negatively impacted by inflexible work schedules that make juggling careers and families increasingly difficult. I applaud Comptroller Stringer for advocating flexible work arrangements that allow employees to work outside the confines of the traditional 9-to-5, and for advancing forward-thinking policy recommendations to improve work-life balance,” said City Councilman Ritchie Torres.   "This groundbreaking report sheds light on the urgent need for predictable and flexible work schedules and paid family leave to help New York parents and caregivers stay attached to the workforce,” said Dina Bakst and Sherry Leiwant, co-presidents of A Better Balance. “Policymakers should heed the call from working families and enact legislation to establish a floor so all workers, not just a select few, can better meet the conflicting demands of work and family and have the opportunity to succeed."    “This study shows how important it is for working New Yorkers and their families to have access to paid family leave and the right to request flexible schedules when they need them,” said 32BJ President Hector Figueroa.    “Fast-food and other low-wage workers find it nearly impossible to arrange for childcare, attend classes or work another job due to the practice of on-call scheduling that requires them to be constantly at the disposal of their employers. As we continue to fight for access to $15 an hour and a union for all workers, we need to promote policies that ensure hard-working people can take care of their families instead of allowing employers to maximize their profits at workers’ expense.”   “As more and more New York City residents find themselves in the role of family caregiver, it is no surprise to AARP that concepts like paid family leave, flexible scheduling and predictive scheduling are so popular,” said Christopher Widelo, associate state director of AARP New York.    “We hope all policymakers at both the city and state level join City Comptroller Stringer in appreciating the benefits of these forward-looking policies not only for New York’s families but for business and taxpayers in terms of increased productivity on the job and the ability to provide cost-effective care for our aging loved ones at home.  Already under a great deal of stress, family caregivers need support, and these policies would provide them the peace of mind of knowing they can care for their loved one without paying an unreasonable price.”   “We applaud the New York City Comptroller’s attention to these critical issues facing New York City’s workers. The survey results make clear that action is needed to make working schedules match the needs of our families. We look forward to working with the Comptroller and the City Council to take action on the issue of scheduling in New York City,” said Andrew Friedman, Co-Executive Director, Center for Popular Democracy.   "This powerful new report from Comptroller Scott Stringer underlines the urgency for enactment of public policies like paid family leave and advance notice of work schedules that will make it possible for New Yorkers to support their families without neglecting them," said Nancy Rankin, Vice President for Policy Research and Advocacy at Community Service Society. "We found widespread support for such laws in our annual Unheard Third survey."   “For 45 years, Legal Momentum has fought to make the workplace more family-friendly and welcoming to women, including pregnant women and working mothers,” said Penny M. Venetis, Executive Vice President and Legal Director of Legal Momentum. “Legal Momentum supports any legislation that would allow women and men to reach their full potential as workers, without abandoning their responsibilities to their families.  Today’s technology permits all workers to have more flexible work hours so that they don’t have to choose between their work and their families.”   Deborah Axt, Co-Executive Director of Make the Road New York, said: "We applaud the Comptroller for being one of the earliest and best champions on the critically important issue of workplace scheduling. All too many immigrant and low wage workers know the reality that this report documents: being called into work with little notice, having hours that fluctuate significantly from week to week, and reporting to work only to be sent home without pay. These scheduling practices create economic instability and make it incredibly difficult for people to plan their lives--to arrange for day care, go to the doctor, and fulfill their obligations as parents and family members.”   “A woman’s ability to exercise her full reproductive rights, including determining when and whether to have children, is often dependent on the degree of flexibility provided by her employer,” said Andrea Miller, president of NARAL Pro-Choice New York. “NARAL Pro-Choice New York looks forward to working with Comptroller Stringer and other elected officials to pursue flexible workplace policies that improve women’s lives and enable their financial stability.”   “The Comptroller’s survey confirms how critically important paid family leave is to both New York women and men,” said Donna Lieberman, Executive Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. “The state legislature has no reason to delay passing a paid family leave program – it’s good for business, it costs the state nothing, and it will finally ensure New Yorkers can take the time they need to care for their families without facing debt or bankruptcy.”   “Comptroller Stringer asked and New Yorkers resoundingly answered: The public wants and needs stronger family-friendly policies and protections to create work-life balance and economic security. New laws ensuring paid family leave, flex-time, and advanced notice of schedules will provide workers with the necessary tools to manage the demands of the 21st Century workforce,” said Beverly Neufeld, President of PowHer New York.   “Due to on-call scheduling, many retail workers not only live paycheck to paycheck, but now hour to hour. Our union has long been fighting the unfair practice of erratic scheduling and the hourly injustice of on-call shifts in retail jobs. When low-wage workers face changing schedules week to week and even within hours of a shift can be told not to come in, it puts a major strain on their lives. This leads to family and financial stress, not knowing when one will work or how much they will make week to week. I would like to thank Comptroller Scott Stringer for this report that will now provide city policymakers with necessary details of how 'flexible' work schedules harm workers at the low end of wage scale,” said Stuart Appelbaum, President RWDSU   Rachel Laforest, Director of the Retail Action Project (RWDSU), says: "In retail, and across the service sector, workers face increasingly erratic hours due to employers’ efforts to match labor costs to consumer demand. These scheduling practices are not sustainable: families don’t know if they can meet weekly expenses, caregivers can’t predict when they will have to arrange for care for children or relatives, and students don’t know if they will be able to attend classes. It’s time to call for worker-driven flexibility where employees’ scheduling needs are respected. The Retail Action Project applauds Comptroller Stringer for bringing work-life balance to the forefront and calling for the right to request a flexible schedule."   Source: Black Star News

Times Union - August 10, 2014, by  Casey Seiler - Between its draft and final versions, a report by SUNY's Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government on New York's controversial Scaffold Law incorporated changes that tended to increase its estimates of the law's cost and impact.

Some of the changes echoed suggestions made to researchers by the leader of an anti-Scaffold Law organization that paid $82,000 to fund the report — sponsorship that has led critics to attack the study as advocacy in the guise of research. Its authors, however, insist the changes reflect nothing more than their own good-faith efforts to clarify the analysis.

The Scaffold Law, which places "absolute liability" on employers for gravity-related workplace injuries, is supported by labor unions but opposed by business groups that claim it needlessly drives up construction costs. Opponents would like to see New York follow other states by adopting a "comparative negligence" standard that would make workers proportionately responsible when their actions contribute to an accident.

The Rockefeller Institute report was funded by the Lawsuit Reform Alliance, a leading opponent of the law, through its research arm, the New York Civil Justice Institute. The study, made public in February, drew initial controversy for a statistical analysis that concluded construction injuries in Illinois dropped after the state repealed its version of the Scaffold Law in 1995. That finding was highlighted by the law's opponents, and harshly criticized by labor groups such as the Center for Popular Democracy.

The director of the Albany-based Rockefeller Institute, Thomas Gais, subsequently backed away from that chapter, citing what he described as flaws in the Illinois analysis — conducted by a Cornell University researcher — and the fact that the report was released to its funders before a final round of vetting had taken place.

After that dispute came to light in April, advocates on both sides filed Freedom of Information Law requests to find out if pressure had been placed on the institute, either during its research or after the report's release.

Documents produced by the Rockefeller Institute in response to the Center for Popular Democracy's FOIL included email correspondence between researchers and Tom Stebbins, the leader of the Lawsuit Reform Alliance. The exchanges, described last month by the Times Union, included a July 2013 email containing two pages of Stebbins' suggested edits offered in response to a draft version of the report. While many of his suggested changes were merely typographical, others went to the substance of the report.

The institute initially refused to release the draft report, but produced it last week on the advice of SUNY's FOIL officer. Side-by-side comparisons of the two reports show that in several instances changes were made that addressed issues raised by Stebbins.

The contract between the institute and the LRA required the researchers to communicate regularly with their funders as the report progressed. In an interview last week, Stebbins said his suggestions were nothing more than an effort "to get the complete picture" of the costs of Scaffold Law.

The second section of the report, prepared by lead researcher Michael Hattery, attempted to assess the public sector costs and impacts imposed by Scaffold Law, including the annual average price of Scaffold Law-related injury awards for public projects. In the draft, researchers found that sum by taking total spending on state and local capital projects (not including public authorities) and applying the average percentage that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority reported spending for labor law injury award costs. (Because the MTA uses what's essentially an in-house insurance entity, it offered the researchers rich data on insurance costs, claim awards and construction value.)

In the draft version of the report, the formula estimates the cost of gravity-related claims costs by using half of the MTA's fraction (0.3 percent of total construction value) to estimate awards in urban areas and a quarter of the MTA average (0.15 percent) for non-urban awards. Using those multipliers, the average cost added up to $28.3 million for 2007-2011.

"Why do you use half of the MTA average .3%," Stebbins asked the researchers in his notes on the draft. He added that it seemed "very inconsistent" with the industry's estimate that Scaffold Law adds at least 4 percent to the cost of any public construction project.

"How can we reconcile?" he wrote.

Stebbins also pointed the authors to data available from the New York City School Construction Authority, which has in recent years buckled under escalating insurance costs for its projects.

The $28.3 million figure, he wrote, "does not include additional insurance costs, which is likely the driver of the 4% estimate. Any thoughts on getting to that number? ... Perhaps we could have an MTA estimate for payouts and an SCA estimate for insurance. That may help reconcile the two figures."

The final report uses calculations that doubled the potential claims costs.

A corrected version of the draft's calculation ($30.2 million) is offered as a "lower bound" for average annual injury awards, but the report provides a new "upper bound" of $60.5 million obtained by employing the full MTA average (0.6 percent) for urban projects and half of that fraction (0.3 percent) for non-urban work.

In a response to the Times Union's emailed questions last week, Hattery said that the injury award cost figure was always intended as "a very rough estimate" due to a lack of specific data.

"After reflection — after the first draft — we chose to use a range rather than a single point estimate," he said. "This is often done so that users and readers of the report do not overvalue the 'precision' of a single number when it is based on a significant set of assumptions."

The same chapter of the draft includes a two-page case study on the construction of the Lake Champlain Bridge, in which those interviewed — including the chief engineers on the New York and Vermont sides of the project, Vermont's attorney general, and the contractor's project engineer and risk control manager — said Scaffold Law had only marginal impact on the structure's price tag.

In his edits, Stebbins recommended scrapping the case study: "As discussed, suggest we remove this section unless we can get someone to talk."

"I felt that no one they interviewed knew what Scaffold Law was and how it affected the cost of construction," Stebbins said last week. " ... We were not able to get people who understood what the costs were."

The final report jettisoned the Champlain Bridge analysis.

Hattery said the case study was dropped because it failed to provide a contrast between insurance costs in the two states. Because New York was the principle partner in the bridge project, he said, "there was no contrast to compare in the execution of the project ... nor were there any fall-from-height claims to review and describe, to our knowledge."

In its place, a new case study was added that examined Scaffold Law's impacts on the School Construction Authority, and described the $1.1 million settlement of an accident claim that ended up costing half of the construction value of the project where the injury occurred.

Hattery said the SCA analysis was included because of the researchers' desire to offer "at least one specific Scaffold case in a higher-density urban environment. ... The case was completed later, in part, because it required a longer time frame for access to personnel, data, etc."

Stebbins said it would have been irresponsible for researchers to not have addressed the SCA in the analysis.

The final report was the centerpiece of February's annual Scaffold Law reform lobby day at the Capitol. The Lawsuit Reform Alliance touted its release with a news statement: "With the study in hand," it concluded, "Scaffold Law reform advocates look for positive traction in the legislature this year."

Instead, the session ended with no action taken on Scaffold Law.

Josie Duffy of the Center for Popular Democracy called on the Rockefeller Institute to release all the drafts of the disputed report.

"The public deserves a full accounting of SUNY's role in helping business groups attack worker safety laws," she said.

Source.

On a sunny morning in early May, a wayward DART bus pulled to a stop in front of Paul Laurence Dunbar Learning Center in South Dallas. From the porches of tumbledown homes, neighbors glanced with mild curiosity as the school’s principal, Dionel Waters, stepped aboard. Waiting for him on the bus was an array of local dignitaries, including a city council member, a state representative, a U.S. Congressman, a Dallas County judge, and the guest of honor, Robert Kaplan, the president of the Dallas Fed. The riders had accepted an activist group's invitation to tour hardscrabble Dallas neighborhoods that remain untouched by the region’s booming economy.

Waters stood at the front of the idling bus with a microphone and described for Kaplan some of Dunbar’s challenges. The previous school year, all but two of the campus’ 594 students qualified as low-income. The median household income for the surrounding neighborhood, which borders the sprawling parking lots on Fair Park’s eastern edge, is around $10,000 per year. Broken families are the norm, as are parents with criminal records. Unemployment in the area is staggering, with only a third of working-age men and around 40 percent of working-age women with jobs, according to census data.

Then, Waters pivoted. Together with Hank Lawson, who works for the community development nonprofit Frazier Revitalization Inc., Waters described a vision for transformational change at Dunbar. With support from the Texas Organizing Project, which organized the bus tour, Dunbar would open the 2016-17 school year as Dallas ISD’s first ever “community school.”

Community schools are built on the idea that education doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Poverty levels, family structure, health and nutrition, emotional well-being, and all manner of other outside factors impact academic performance and school quality. Creating a better school, then, requires addressing not only what happens in the classroom but outside social and economic factors as well.

Exactly what a community school looks like depends on the specific needs of the individual school and the surrounding community. Generally speaking, though, the model emphasizes getting parents, community members and teachers greater input in campus decision-making; forging partnerships with local businesses and nonprofits to provide programming and services the school can’t; and finding non-punitive ways to address student behavior.

It is billed as a more humane alternative to No Child Left Behind-style school reform, which can punish poor and heavily minority schools for poor performance without doing much to address root causes.

Community schools are meant to be transformational. A report released in February by the Center for Popular Democracy profiled eight campuses and school districts across the country that have implemented the community schools model with tremendous success.

One of the more dramatic turnarounds took place in Austin. Webb Middle School, a perennially low-performing campus in a working class Hispanic neighborhood in northeast Austin, was on the brink of closure in 2007 when neighbors rallied and convinced the district to give them a final chance to save the school. They turned to the community schools model and crafted a detailed plan based on feedback from parents and neighbors.

The school restored music and art to the curriculum, adding band, orchestra and a dance troupe. The Boys and Girls Club began offering after-school programs. Another nonprofit provided college mentoring. A mobile clinic offered free immunizations and physicals. Other organizations provided parents help with employment, housing and health issues and offered them ESL classes.

Test scores climbed. So did enrollment. By 2015, Webb had gone from the worst middle school in the district to one of its best.

Waters and Lawson hoped something similar could happen at Dunbar, which had been placed on the state’s list of failing schools in the 2014-15 school year. So did Ed Turner, the Texas Organizing Project staffer who’d already spent months laying the groundwork and joined Waters and Lawson on the bus. And so, for that matter, did DISD administrators. Cynthia Wilson, Superintendent Michael Hinojosa’s chief of staff, told the Observer the following day that the district was supporting the community schools model in general and the Dunbar pilot in particular. “From our perspective, [it’s] a win-win,” she said.

On the bus, Kaplan nodded along as Waters spoke; turning Dunbar into a community school certainly seemed like a no-brainer.

But then, rather abruptly, DISD pulled the plug. Alendra Lyons, a community leader in the Dunbar neighborhood who both works at the school and serves on its site-based decision-making committee, was told at a committee meeting in June that the community schools pilot had been moved elsewhere.

Why, after months of planning and the showy presentation to the VIPs on the DART bus, the Dunbar project had been unceremoniously scrapped, Lyons couldn’t say, only that it definitely wasn’t happening.

DISD’s official explanation is, in a word, bureaucracy.

In a July 25 email, DISD spokesman Andre Riley said the community schools initiative had been moved from under Wilson and into the school leadership department.

Stephanie Elizalde, the chief of school leadership, said in a subsequent interview that she decided that John Neely Bryan Elementary in East Oak Cliff was a better fit for the pilot. Like Dunbar, John Neely Bryan is overwhelmingly low-income and has struggled academically, bouncing on and off the state’s list of failing schools. Last August, it received its second consecutive “improvement required” designation from the Texas Education Agency; a third would mean implementation of a “campus turnaround plan” and potentially drastic changes at the campus.

Unlike Dunbar, however, Bryan is part of DISD’s “Intensive Support Network,” two dozen struggling schools targeted by district administrators for special oversight. It also has a more seasoned principal. Elizalde describes Waters as “likeable, intelligent [but] also relatively inexperienced” – barely 30 with just two years as a principal under his belt. Elizalde felt that Bryan’s principal, DISD veteran Tonya Anderson, was better equipped to make the pilot a success.

For advocates of community schools, the stakes are high. A high-profile failure in the pilot could taint the model in DISD and cripple efforts to expand to other campuses. “That is what I don’t want to have happen,” Elizalde said. "I’ve got to think bigger picture."

But several people familiar with the discussions say Dunbar was the victim less of ordinary bureaucratic machinations but of DISD’s toxic internal politics. Specifically, they point to a long-simmering feud between the Texas Organizing Project and trustee Bernadette Nutall.

The rift dates back to efforts to rescue Dade Middle School, which, thanks to poor planning, sky-high turnover, and heavy-handed interventions by then-Superintendent Mike Miles, spun into chaos soon after it opened for the 2013-14 school year. The Texas Organizing Project was heavily involved in the turnaround effort, mobilizing parents and pushing DISD to make Dade the first of 20 community schools in the district. So, for that matter, was Nutall, who was famously removed from the campus following a confrontation with Miles.

By all accounts, the turnaround effort has been a success. There is much less agreement on whether Dade’s resurgence has more to do with the Texas Organizing Project’s community work, Nutall’s close oversight, or, alternately, a belatedly successful intervention by Miles, whose administration found a hyper-competent principal in Tracie Washington and offered the district’s best teachers a hefty salary bump to teach at Dade.

Nutall has bristled at the Texas Organizing Project’s credit-taking. In response to a KERA story this spring focused on the organization’s efforts to turn Dade and other campuses into community schools, Nutall sent an indignant email to trustee Miguel Solis, who was quoted in the piece broadly endorsing the community schools concept, and several DISD administrators saying Dade’s success had been “hijacked.”

Dade staff and community members had long been trying to have a meaningful role in the school, Nutall wrote, but they were consistently rebuffed by Miles and the previous campus administration.

“However, since the new administration has been in place, the staff, parents, students and community members have been able to implement the very same suggestions that were ignored before,” she wrote. “The results have been tremendous. Yet, they weren’t recognized for their efforts. Instead, they believe that their results have been hijacked in an effort to falsely attribute their success to a concept that had little to do with the results.”

In an interview, Nutall said she supports community schools but that there “has to be buy in from all parties.” That wasn’t present at Dade, and it wasn’t present at other campuses where Texas Organizing Project wanted to implement the model. “I understand them [the Texas Organizing Project] getting upset,” she said, adding that “they wanted the whole Lincoln-Madison feeder pattern.”

“I am not going to force something on principals and teachers,” Nutall said. “That is not good governance.”

At the same time, Nutall distanced herself from the decision to move the community schools pilot from Dunbar. The decision, Nutall said, was a judgment call by Elizalde and other DISD administrators.

Allison Brim, organizing director for the Texas Organizing Project, was also careful to downplay the friction between her group and Nutall.

“Essentially what happened, there had just been turnover in the administration,” Brim said.

In early 2016, former chief of school leadership Robert Bravo, with whom the Texas Organizing Project had been in discussions, was replaced by Elizalde. “She was very supportive of the community school concept but really wanted to reconsider where we were going to do the first pilot, which we were open to in some ways as well.”

John Neely Bryan, in everyone’s view, could benefit as much from the community schools model as Dunbar. Perhaps even more, given the comparative lack of outside resources directed at Bryan by churches and nonprofits.

“We were also interested in having full support from the trustee,” Brim said. She described Nutall as “supportive” of community schools but said that John Neely Bryan’s trustee, Lew Blackburn,”was pretty eager to find a school in his district” for a pilot.

In the end, for the Texas Organizing Project as well as for Elizalde, the most important thing “was really getting the opportunity to prove that this model was an effective, successful model for school turnaround,” Brim said.

All parties – Brim, Elizalde, and Nutall – were quick to say that the idea of turning Dunbar into a community school isn’t dead. Discussions are ongoing, and DISD and the Texas Organizing Project may well get around to implementing the model in the coming years.

Dunbar, after all, is still in sore need of a turnaround. State accountability ratings the Texas Education Agency will release in the coming days will show that Dunbar is on the state’s list of failing schools for the second consecutive year, which has made Elizalde rethink the decision to move the pilot.

“If I had a crystal ball and could have seen that Dunbar was going to wind up in [improvement required]-2 status," she said, "I would have left it there anyway.”

By ERIC NICHOLSON 

Source

Gary Kubiak taken to the hospital after Broncos’ loss to Atlanta in Denver

Broncos defense toppled after Falcons finally find a made-to-order blueprint to beat them

Ask Amy: Sisters’ maternal support affects relationship

Nixon-era proposal to give “basic income” to all people springs back to life

Poll: Should Colorado voters pass medical aid in dying?

Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump trade charges, insults in second presidential debate

Nearly $35 million has been poured into Colorado’s statewide ballot initiatives so far this year, according to campaign finance reports filed this week, with a tobacco giant accounting for $10 million of that in its effort to defeat a tax increase on its products.

Combined with $1.7 million collected by proponents of the tobacco tax, which would fund various health-related initiatives, that makes Amendment 72 the most costly race so far at $11.7 million. The medical aid-in-dying measure, Proposition 106, has been a distant second at $6.6 million with proponents raising $4.8 million and opponents gathering $1.8 million.

SEPTEMBER 29, 2016 Hickenlooper endorses higher minimum wage, aid in dying, cigarette tax

SEPTEMBER 23, 2016 9 statewide ballot initiatives you’ll see on Election Day

Still, it could have been more. Much, much more.

“There are a number of intense fights, but this year will be known for what’s not on the ballot, what might have been if TABOR, fracking and wine-and-beer had gone forward,” said independent political analyst Eric Sondermann, noting that the three contentious issues could easily have doubled or tripled what has been raised so far. “Television would be truly unwatchable.”

Some fundraising snapshots:

Amendment 69

Proponents of the effort to create a state-run health care system, dubbed ColoradoCare, have raised their money — $369,233 so far — almost entirely by relatively small donations, many under $100. The opposition’s $4 million has attracted six-figure support from health care players like HealthONE and Centura Health, as well as the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce.

2016 COLORADO BALLOT MEASURES

• Amendment 69: ColoradoCare

• Amendment 70: Minimum Wage

• Amendment 71: Constitutional changes

• Amendment 72: Cigarette taxes

• Proposition 106: Aid-in-dying

• Proposition 107: Presidential primaries

• Proposition 108: Unaffiliated voters

• Amendment T: Slavery reference

• Amendment U: Property taxes

• Ballot Issue 4B: Arts funding

Amendment 70

Substantial chunks of the $3.1 million for the measure that would raise the state’s minimum wage — an effort that has surfaced in various forms across the country — come from national groups such as the New York-based Center for Popular Democracy Action Fund, which has given $650,000, and unions such as Service Employees International Union, which has given $250,000. Opponents have raised considerably less, with many contributors coming from the restaurant industry. But their effort also has attracted out-of-state donors such as the anti-“Big Labor” Workforce Fairness Institute, which gave $250,000.

Amendment 71

A political Who’s Who of interests has coalesced around the attempt, dubbed Raise the Bar, to make amending the state constitution much more difficult. But some energy industry players stand out. Protecting Colorado’s Environment, Economy, and Energy Independence, an oil-and-gas financed group that amassed millions of dollars anticipating a battle over proposed fracking measures that failed to make the ballot, instead has poured $2 million into the measure so far. Vital for Colorado, a coalition of business interests that advocates for oil and gas development, along with the Colorado Petroleum Council and Whiting Petroleum Corp., have combined for nearly another $1 million.

Campaign finance reports for the three committees listed as opposing the initiative have reported only about $1,000 in contributions.

Amendment 72

Fundraising for the effort to pass the tobacco tax has delivered $1.7 million in several five- and six-figure chunks from health care entities such as Children’s Hospital Colorado and the American Heart Association, while University of Colorado Health and University Physicians, Inc. have led the way with $250,000 each. Opposition — in two $5 million donations — comes from Virginia-based Altria Client Services and its affiliates, part of the group that owns Philip Morris.

“The fact that they’re investing and now reinvesting, they see some glimmer of opportunity or they’d not be playing at that magnitude,” Sondermann said. “That said, they remain underdogs — though big-money underdogs.”

Proposition 106

Proponents of the medical aid-in-dying initiative have a substantial edge, with nearly all of their funding coming from the Compassion and Choices Action Network, a Denver-based but nationally active organization that works to protect and expand end-of-life options. Leading the largely faith-based opposition to the proposition is the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Denver, which has contributed $1.115 million, while dioceses across the country have pitched in to varying degrees. In the latest reporting cycle, the Colorado Springs archdiocese contributed $500,000.

Propositions 107 and 108

The measures to create a state presidential primary and also allow unaffiliated voters to cast ballots in party primaries have raised $3.7 million — notably $950,000 from Davita CEO Kent Thiry — against no discernible opposition at this point.

“If an opposition campaign is going to come together,” Sondermann said, “the time is now — if not past tense.”

Two referred measures, to clean up language in the state constitution referring to slavery and to provide a minor property tax exemption, have faced no organized opposition and raised very little money.

Two more reporting periods remain before the November election.

________

Issue contributions

Total for all initiatives as of Oct. 3 report: $34.77 million

Amendment 72 — Tobacco tax

Yes: $1.7 million

No: $10 million

Total: $11.7 million

Proposition 106 — Medical aid-in-dying

Yes: $4.8 million

No: $1.8 million

Total: $6.6 million

Amendment 69 — ColoradoCare

Yes: $369,233

No: $4.0 million

Total: $4.37 million

Amendment 70 — Minimum wage

Yes: $3.1 million

No: $1.2 million

Total: $4.3 million

Amendment 71 — Tougher to amend constitution

Yes: $4.1 million

No: $980

Total: $4.1 million

Propositions 107/108 — Presidential primary/independents vote in primaries

Yes: $3.7 million (including $805k loan)

No: $0

Total: $3.7 million

Amendment T — Clean up language referring to slavery

Yes: $15,129

No opposition

Amendment U — Exempt certain interests from property tax

$0

No committee for or against

By KEVIN SIMPSON

Source