The Notebook

Click here
view counter

Some call for action on King report

by thenotebook on Sep 23 2011 Posted in Latest news

by Bill Hangley, Jr.

As Philadelphia digests the scathing report prepared for Mayor Michael Nutter on the political pressure surrounding Martin Luther King’s ill-fated charter, the question becomes what to do with the troubling findings?
 
The report, written by Nutter’s Chief Integrity Officer, Joan Markman, concluded that last spring, former School Reform Commission Chair Robert Archie helped state Rep. Dwight Evans mount a “sustained back-channel effort” to secure King’s charter, worth a possible $12 million a year, for Evans’ longtime associates at Foundations, Inc.

The report blasted Archie for deeply involving himself in Evans’ behind-the-scenes campaign, despite Archie’s publicly declared conflict of interest in the matter. Markman concluded that Archie and Evans’ actions “compromised” the School District on a number of levels.
 
But her report does not include any specific recommendations for further action.
 
Mayoral spokesman Mark McDonald said that Nutter was content to leave others to determine if further investigation was needed. “This is a publicly issued report,” he said. “Any agency that might want to take a look at it can and will.”
 
Nutter indicated that the one thing he’ll push for is more ethics training for SRC members. “The mayor will ask the city's ethics board to be in touch with the SRC,” said  McDonald. “They do have a lot of resources. He will insist that his appointees receive that kind of training.”
 
Philadelphia’s most prominent good-government watchdog group, the Committee of Seventy, called for additional investigation by Pennsylvania Attorney General Linda Kelly and Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams.
 
“Philadelphians should be appalled by the report’s picture of backroom dealings and political strong-arming,” said Seventy’s president, Zack Stalberg, in a statement. “And we don’t know the complete story because Dwight Evans refused to cooperate with the investigation. The fact that he didn’t demands further inquiry by someone with subpoena power.”
 
Conchevia Washington, parent of a King student and chair of its School Advisory Council, praised Markman for her diligence and attention to detail. “She questioned more than 30 people,” Washington said. “It seems to me that she really took this report very seriously.”
 
But Washington also believes that further investigation from law enforcement is necessary not only to determine whether laws were broken during Archie and Evans’ backroom campaign, but to shed light on the question of why was it so important to Evans and Archie to keep Foundations in place at King.
 
“So many things still raise questions for me. The bulk of it has been answered, but I still have those questions,” Washington said. “And unless this thing gets to where there’s subpoenas and whatever else, I’m never going to have those answers. There’s still the question of ‘why’, and the people who know why are the ones that are not talking.”
 
Washington said she wants to know more about what the other three SRC members knew and when.
 
She’d also like more light shed on the role of Acting Superintendent Leroy Nunery, who, according to Markman’s report, helped Archie organize a pivotal closed-door meeting at District headquarters on March 16, without informing then-superintendent Arlene Ackerman or the rest of the SRC.
 
“I understand where the mayor is coming from, that there needs to be a review of the ethics policies at the SRC. But that’s not where I think this needs to end,” said Washington. “It’s got to go further, because we are just one example. Prior to us, how much of this kind of stuff has been floating around? I think you have to really question the credibility and the motives of the SRC.”
 
Like Washington, Stalberg said the report left unanswered questions about the role of the rest of the SRC. Stalberg also questioned the mayor’s decision to withhold the King report until after Archie’s resignation.
 
McDonald has acknowledged that the mayor had been briefed on the report’s main findings in August, though he said the mayor only received the final report “several days ago.”
 
“The mayor should have publicly demanded Archie’s resignation as soon as he learned about his chief integrity officer’s findings, which reportedly was some time ago,” said Stalberg. “Instead, he waited until Archie resigned on his own terms and then praised his service. This is not the way someone who calls himself the ‘Education Mayor’ should behave.”
 
Asked why Nutter did not move earlier to remove Archie, McDonald said the mayor “did not have authority to remove Mr. Archie as chair or as a member.”
 
Archie and Evans have both challenged the accuracy of Markman’s report. Archie called parts of it “pure fiction” and denied ever attending any meetings at which anyone was “threatened or intimidated.” He slammed many of Markman’s conclusions as “groundless” and “unsubstantiated.”
 
Archie’s statement included one substantive challenge to Markman’s account. Archie claims that it was Ackerman who persuaded Mosaica Turnaround Partners of Atlanta to withdraw from the King contract, at a dinner immediately following the March 16 closed-door meeting – and that she subsequently told Archie that he should pass that information along to Evans.
 
Ackerman told Markman a different story – that it was Mosaica executive John Porter’s own decision to withdraw in the wake of the pressure – and Markman’s report, after exploring the conflicting accounts in detail, concludes that Ackerman’s version is more credible.
 
Ackerman told the Notebook Thursday via email that while she had yet to read the entire report, she stands by her account to Markman, including the aspects contested by Archie.
 
Markman wrote in the report itself that “whichever version … is correct, the fact remains that what caused Mosaica to withdraw from MLK was the meeting Archie convened … and Evans’ clear communication at that meeting – unimpeded and undiscouraged by Archie, and unreported to his fellow SRC members or Ackerman - that he intended to make it difficult for Mosaica to successfully operate MLK.”
 
Evans also reacted strongly to the report. “I am stunned the city's chief integrity officer would craft a document that characterizes me as a puppet master who has the ability to pull strings and make people dance. That is simply not true,” said Evans in a statement published in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Evans did not cite any specific inaccuracies in Markman’s account.
 
McDonald said that Nutter did not plan to speak further about the report or its findings. “He’s provided the report,” McDonald said. “The report speaks for itself.”

Comments (67)

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 11:22.

Throw them all in jail, and take away Ackerman's certifications.

Submitted by Annonymous (not verified) on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 13:32.

What about William Wade - principal at MLK? He was brought to Philly by Ackerman. He was at a "flagged for cheating" school from Atlanta. Was at Vaux one year and then MLK. Ackerman had to have a say over his placement.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 13:58.

PLEASE-------------They're all dirty as dirt, Nutter, OF COURSE, included. The worst part is that NOTHING of consequence will happen to any of them and the beat goes on. There is a mad grab for easy cash from the scam called Charter schools and ll these folks are/were climbing over one another to line their pockets. Mosaica--John Q. Porter was chased out of Oklahoma City--Google him--if you dare. The entire episode is shameful, replete with ripping off the poor kids while decrying Corbett and The Man the whole time. Carpetbaggers all and everybody knows it though apologists like WURD Radio, will find a way to ignore the 50,000 pound elephant in the room. Nothing will change, especially with the water carrier, aka, Nunnery in charge. They'll just reshuffle the cards and keep playing. By the way, Corbett is the DEVIL so please don't think I'm a republican leaning person---not even close but corruption is ugly all the time.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 14:07.

Is Nutter serious? An attorney with a specialty in government law should need "ethics training"? A partner at a law firm should be able to give ethics training, not be evading conflict of interests.

This is a clear violation of the State Ethics Act, and the SRC is a state created creature that oversees state funding.

The same can be said at the federal level. This is a violation of rules prohibiting conflict of interest and rigging federal funds, quid pro quo, pay to play, and the PSD receives federal money.

Report them to the PA State AG, and complain to the OIG that handles Dept. of Education funding waste, fraud, and abuse.

There's no "teaching" anyone the rules who has for so long broken them. If we are ever going to have decent schools, the graft and payola has got to end, and it only ends when corrupt lawyers feel the pain of penalties.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 16:44.

I will repeat those famous words uttered by Dwight Evans, "like a bulldog on a bone".

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 19:07.

Or the infamous Ozzie Mayers said sooo many years ago, "Money talks and b***# Walks...!"

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 09/23/2011 - 19:23.

Willie Sutton said he robbed banks because that's where the money is. These vermin robbed the schools because that's where the money is. NOTHING will change because Corbett loves watching people of color ripping off other people of color. It justifies Corbett's disgraceful and inexcusable actions, destroying the hopes of our children.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 11:06.

And this folks, sums up exactly why public education needs to remain public education. When we open the doors to Charters, this is what happens. Let's fix broken schools from within. Don't close them and sell them off to the highest whore bidders . . (An ex King-teacher)

Submitted by ProPublicEducation (not verified) on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 12:34.

I heartily agree!!! Where would our schools be now if Governors Ridge and Schweiker had given the whole system to Edison as they planned when the State took over the schools and created the SRC? Edison no longer exists after failing throughout the country. Charters and vouchers are all about the money for business types.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 15:17.

OBVIOUSLY RIGHT---Charters and its ilk are all about making money for the corporate types and Wall Street connections. Education is just a means to an end, a financial end for all the adults involved in the money grab. WE need to stop all this BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY or our kids are totally doomed, not with 2 strikes against them but all 3. Public Education needs to be improved but giving schools to the highest bidders--Gamble, Evans, John Q. Porter etc. is not the way to go if our kids' futures matter which they clearly don't to those varmints. WE need to be more forceful by any means necessary or we're dead meat.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 11:40.

Subpoena the members of the School Advisory Committee. They need to be exposed just like the others.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 15:22.

They'll just lie as usual. They're all in this together. Public Ed. needs to stay Public and these slithering types will have to feed from some other entity. Charters are the easiest way for these vultures to make easy money. The fact that they predominately ruin the lives of the poor matter zilch to them. The whole time they're stealing from the poor, they're complaining about the playing field being uneven and they manage to get support from those folks from whom they are stealing. Billy Sunday, Jimmy Swaggart and Elmer Gantry would be proud...................and jealous.

Submitted by MLK SAC Chair (not verified) on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 15:25.

I welcome the opportunity to be supenoned, but in the essence of time, what would you like to know? I'm sure that by posting as "anonymous" you may have something to hide! With all do respect, unless you were on the frontline with us, you don't know us.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 16:48.

I didn't know Hitler but I have a pretty good idea about him, you boob. It's "due," moron. Please go back to 3rd. Grade.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 19:34.

God, you are an ASS, is it something you have to practice or were you just born that way?

Submitted by tom-104 on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 18:02.

Sorry for those engaging in name calling. The only children on here are the name callers.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 20:41.

Why did you choose/vote in favor of Mosaica instead of Foundations? Try and be as specific as possible. Thanks.

Submitted by MLK SAC Chair (not verified) on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 21:55.

Good question...I personally chose Mosaica because I felt as though they could offer King students the best possible chance for success beyond high school. It was easy for outsiders to believe that Foundations was the answer because they were "familiar" with the school, however, Foundations could not prove to us beyond words in a proposal that they were capable of turning around the school. There was substance to their proposal and because they did not have a school of their own, there was nothing to base their proposal on or their track record.

An example of this was at the Community Forum (which took place before the SAC vote). During that forum, each company was asked the same series of questions ranging from curriculum and community to programs and educational content. Not one person representing Foundations could answer every questions. The mic was passed at least a dozen times in the one hour session. They seemed very unprepared and unsure of themselves. Now, I can appreciate that the ENTIRE Foundations team came out that evening as a show of solidarity, but we needed answers not a rally.

Yes, it is true that Mosaica did not have a high school in their portfolio, but they managed schools in major cities. Members of the SAC conducted a site inspection of a school in DC.

I am sure that every SAC member has his/her own reason for voting the way they did, but this is mine.

I know for a fact that many teachers/administrators wanted Foundations, but that would have only offered us more of the same. Change is what was needed desperately and I believe that change coming from the outside in was the possible scenario.

Keep in mind, that when we began the selection process, we had four proposals to choose from and for a reason not explained to us, we ended up with two.

I will conclude by saying that I am very proud of my team for prodding the fight and not yielding to the pressure and the political influence. They are heroes and don't deserve to be criticized for standing up for what they believed in. If this hadn't happened to King, it would have happened to another school.

Submitted by tom-104 on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 00:35.

Thank you very much for sharing this. I think there must be more investigation about the whole MLK experience. Why were you only given two choices? There must be complete transparency in what contracts were being awarded, who gets them, and why. I for one wonder about Ackerman's history with Porter, the head of Mosaica, and if that factored in anyway into the choices you were given.

There is so much acrimony going on in the District. The teachers and parents have got to understand we are on the same side. The focus of our concern must be the children and their future. With the economic situation I fear tensions will just escalate. We have to keep our focus on the children and what is best for them!

Submitted by Wake Up Philly (not verified) on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 10:03.

Great questions and points - I totally agree!
This needs to be investigated by the Feds and let the chips fall where they may.
To the Chair of the SAC - I sat in the SRC Meetings and heard your testimony and questions. People needed to be present to understand how betrayed the parents felt. Kudos to you and the SAC for standing firm and holding true to your commitment. You had no control over the backroom dealings that were taking place.
Shame, shame, shame on Dwight Evans, Robert Archie, Arlene Ackerman and Leroy Nunery for not holding true to the children of the School District! You all need to be investigated and arrested for your duplicity!
Remember Ackerman's mantra oops meant message "Parents are our Partners!" Yea, right!!!!
We need an elected School Board now!!!

Submitted by Bill Hangley (not verified) on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 11:39.

Tom: Markman offers a partial answer to one of your questions - her report indicates that the reason that MLK had only two choices was that of the original four candidates, two (Universal and Johns Hopkins) voluntarily withdrew "when they learned from [the district] that they could focus efforts on other schools in which they were particularly interested."

The implication is that neither really wanted MLK in the first place - or rather, that there were other schools they considered more appealing for whatever reason. Of course we don't know the whole story - it's possible that Universal and JH were both subjected to pressure from Evans or someone else, or that both considered a Foundations win a foregone conclusion. But it's an interesting little tidbit ...

Submitted by tom-104 on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 12:42.

Thank you Bill! I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but Ackerman must be included in any investigation about why Universal and John Hopkins withdrew. Limiting the MLK SAC to two companies increases the odds for her being able to bring in her friend Porter from Mosaica who was trainee under her at the Broad Foundations. Who arranged the tour of the Mosaica school in D.C. by the SAC, for example?

The fact that Michelle Rhee (who is on the Board of Directors of The Broad Center, a national promoter of school privatization (http://tinyurl.com/4xyodds), as was Ackerman until her troubles started in the School District this summer) was here this week speaking at Master Charter to rally for the elimination of teacher seniority indicates that Philadelphia is being targeted by the privatizers. Ackerman deliberately violated the teacher contract regarding seniority with the layoffs and deliberately caused dissension among teachers. She now has some new recruits for the privatization drive from disgruntled Promise Academy teachers.

In Rhee's 16 minute interview with an editor of the Inquirer she said bluntly, after all of the obligatory "children first" rhetoric, that eliminating seniority will save school districts money because they can get rid of higher paid teachers. (This was in the middle of her usual talk about "bad teachers".)

She wants to replace higher seniority teachers with newer and lower paid teachers. Listen to this audio of her talking to new teachers when she was Chancellor in D.C. to see why she couldn't make it as a classroom teacher.

http://tinyurl.com/2fbyrdp

Who made her an expert on "school reform"?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 09/26/2011 - 16:51.

Foundations has contracts with Universal so if they were awarded the contract I'm sure that Universal wouldve gotten a piece of the pie too.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 09:18.

Yes, thank you. Your answer is important to all parents who want to do what is best for their children. It seems that your decision was based on intuition, that is, Foundations was unable to provide solid answers to valid questions. Do you remember what questions these were and what their answers were? What were Mosaica's answers to these? What was the result/general opinion of the site inspection of the Mosaica school in DC? Do you remember who the other two original proposals were from? How did Mosaica promise/offer to change the "status quo"?

Sorry to bombard you with so many questions. If you can answer these it would shed a lot of light for other parents. There is a lot of controversy right now about the charter schools. They are very much "hit and miss", and too much of the controversy is based on emotions and not solid information.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 09:18.

The owner of Mosaica, John Q. Porter, was chased out of Oklahoma City for misusing school money. Sound Familiar?? Ackerman worked for him. Be Careful !!

Submitted by Bill Hangley (not verified) on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 12:07.

Anonymous is correct that Porter resigned from a job in Oklahoma under a cloud - but there's no record that AA ever worked for him, and there's no evidence that the relationship between Porter and Ackerman had anything to do with the King fiasco in particular, or her Renaissance policy (i.e. "turnarounds" via charter transformations) in general. We know that she was his faculty advisor at the Broad Institute. But the two insist that there's no close relationship and that Mosaica got no special favors from the district.

So far, nobody, including Markman, has shared evidence to the contrary. In fact, when Markman reviewed the King SAC process she concluded that it worked as it was supposed to and that all parties involved tried to be even-handed. She reported no evidence that Ackerman or anyone else was tipping the scales in Mosaica's favor. (And note that we know of no reason why Markman would want to protect Ackerman's rep or shield her from further inquiry.)

We frequently see, in these comment threads, folks who believe that the relationship between Porter and Ackerman was somehow pivotal here. But so far, I haven't seen any evidence suggesting that was the case.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 14:33.

Smoke and Fire.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 14:33.

Smoke and Fire.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 14:33.

Smoke and Fire.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 14:33.

Smoke and Fire.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 14:33.

Smoke and Fire.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 14:33.

Smoke and Fire.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 14:34.

Smoke and Fire.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 17:30.

Thank you for your comments for the sake of fairness and truth. If there is any solution moving forward, we need both of these.

Submitted by King SAC Member (not verified) on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 17:55.

If that's all you, keep it to yourself! What a joke!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 19:10.

You're no more a King SAC Member than I am. Stop fronting, Troll.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 09/24/2011 - 20:01.

You don't have to call me, God but if you insist...........

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 08:38.

Learn how to write correctly. It should be, "You don't have to call me God, but if you insist....."

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 09:14.

OUCH----Good Point !!! I was wrwrwr.......ononggggg. I hate to say that word.

Submitted by Wake Up Philly (not verified) on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 09:55.

Wasn't it Evans when he was head of the Appropriations Committee who told Paul Vallas that if more Charter Schools were not made - he would not open the purse strings for the School District? I always wondered why the Citizens of Philadelphia did not react strongly to that statement. Dwight Evans was confused and acted as though it was his money and not the taxpayers money. Who voted him in? Gee I wonder why he is no longer holding the position.
By the way - how is his Charter School faring?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 14:36.

It's a joke just like the rest of them. Their collective house of cards will fall down unless the pols sucking money from them all, can hide the charade a bit longer.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 14:36.

It's a joke just like the rest of them. Their collective house of cards will fall down unless the pols sucking money from them all, can hide the charade a bit longer.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 20:39.

Totally off topic here, but did the district forego giving the $100 allottment for supplies? I checked my paycheck online, and I still don't see it.

Anyone else still having issues with their paycheck?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 21:33.

Did anyone get the $1500 bonus for teachers of hard-to-staff areas (e.g. Math, Special Ed., etc.) this summer? Or did 440 just decide to skip it since they gave lay-off notices to so many people that "hard-to staff" simply doesn't exist anymore. It never showed up in the paycheck this summer & I've yet to get an explanation from the District or the PFT. I presume the money is visiting out of state now & therefore is unavailable.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 21:47.

I know of teachers that received the $1500.00 at the school that I teach at. It was primarily given to Chemistry teachers.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 21:52.

What about the extra pay for extra hours for Promise Academy teachers. This is the second pay period that the amount does not show.

Did anyone check and see if they got a "step raise" this pay???

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 09/25/2011 - 22:08.

I was told it was only for ES classes for last year. Union told me that. I am LSS and I always received it until this past summer. I called and was told that.

Submitted by Annonymous (not verified) on Mon, 09/26/2011 - 05:58.

At our HS, math, science and special ed. teachers received the bonus. It is odd, considering math and special ed. were laid off, that they would get a bonus. The inequitable pay should stop in the next contract. Some teachers don't even teach in the subject area (e.g. they have other duties versus teaching learning support classes) still get the bonus. I rather see the "bonus" go to hard to staff schools. Why should a math or science teacher at Masterman, SLA or Central get a bonus?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 09/27/2011 - 21:14.

Curious, why wouldn't they get the bonus despite the fact that they were laid off? The bonus was for the school year that they taught in 2010-2011. They were laid off July 1st. They completed their school year so they would have been entitled to the bonus or did I miss something?

Submitted by Annonymous (not verified) on Tue, 09/27/2011 - 21:44.

My point is there should not longer be any bonus based on content area - math and special ed. teachers were laid off so the positions are no longer "hard to fill."

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 09/27/2011 - 21:52.

Yes, but the bonuses were for the past year, prior to the Ackermania Hysteria. By the way, virtually everybody who wanted to return, has returned and by January, the School district will, again, be short of teachers. Big Surprise !!

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 09/27/2011 - 22:06.

There are still tons of people laid off. As one of them, it makes me nervous to see comments like this. We are counting on you guys to remember us and put pressure to bring us back.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 05:37.

But remember the bonus was in place prior to the lay off which was effective July 1st. Perhaps, this year there won't be a bonus.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 09/26/2011 - 12:27.

Some people definitely got it. I was told by our union rep that ESOL teachers were supposed to get this but the Sped teacher at my school got it and I didn't.

Submitted by Teach (not verified) on Mon, 09/26/2011 - 17:47.

ESOL teachers get a bonus? That's news to every ESOL teacher I know.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 09/26/2011 - 15:38.

I got it. World language teacher.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 09/26/2011 - 17:05.

I teach World Languages, and I did not get a bonus. For what languages does this "bonus" apply?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 09/27/2011 - 21:10.

Just a mute point, but it was $2000 for hard to staff areas and not all special education teachers received the bonus, it was mentioned that only teachers of the emotional support classrooms received the bonus. Some special education teachers said that they had received the bonus in the past, but this summer only ES teachers received it, so I was told.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 09/26/2011 - 07:21.

I am certain that not all special ed. teachers received the bonus. I, for one, did not and called the Union. They told me that only ES got it this year. If that is not the case, we should file a grievance. Ackermania could be the answer--confusion in all directions. I shall check it out this morning.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 09/27/2011 - 21:16.

You are correct. Only ES special education teachers received the bonus this year. I am told in the past, all special education teachers received the bonus, so I am told, but not this year.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 09/27/2011 - 21:21.

Yes, apparently, the District could call that shot which I don't understand but yes, only ES got the bonus this year,much to my chagrin.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 09/27/2011 - 22:35.

I'm not sure you are completely correct. One LS teacher in my building got it, the others did not. No one bothered to tell the Special Ed teachers why (still waiting for an official explanation from 440 or the PFT). A Math teacher received the bonus, a Science teacher did not. The postings on this site indicate that there seems to be a real lack of accurate information from any source. If I thought for one minute that my bonus would be used to save a teacher or assistant's job, I'd say use it. But we know that is not where the money went & I resent the lack of professional respect that left us without any acknowledgement from our union or administration.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 05:35.

I received the information from 440 that only ES teachers got the bonus.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 09:22.

I agree with you completely. It's surprising that the District had the right to take away the bonuses in the first place. Not very understandable and as you said, inconsistent which is consistent with Ackermania the last 3 years. VERY Unprofessional that nobody informed us.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 20:24.

As I stated earlier and which has been confirmed by other posters, only ES teachers received the bonus of $2000 before taxes this year. I also believe that notices were sent out to those who were affected by this bonus, so if you weren't an ES teacher you would not have been notified of the bonus.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 09/27/2011 - 23:23.

Foundations was at MLK for years and the school is still graduating students who are far below grade level. That is criminal. Their executives make large salaries and students didn't have all of the books they needed. One article stated that their proposal was barely acceptable. No wonder, they weren't chosen.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 09/28/2011 - 20:28.

$1500.00

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. We reserve the right to delete or remove any material deemed to be in violation of this rule, and to ban anyone who violates this rule. Please see our "Terms of Usage" for more detail concerning your obligations as a user of this service. Reader comments are limited to 500 words. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

Follow Us On

          

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

 

Philly Ed Feed

Recent Comments

Top

Public School Notebook

3721 Midvale Ave
Philadelphia, PA 19129
Phone: (215) 951-0330, ext. 2107
Fax: (215) 951-0342
notebook@thenotebook.org

© Copyright 2012 The Philadelphia Public School Notebook. All Rights Reserved.
Terms of Usage and Privacy Policy