On February 6, Norm Scott over at his blog Ednotes posited some possible type of cooperation Educators 4 Excellence and Unity/UFT due to, well let's read Norm's words...
between

The resolution described below never came up at the meeting as there was a 6PM adjournment. No one from E4E handed out the reso but a stack was left on the UFT lit table, which we are always told is a no-no - they say they only want official UFT lit and if we try to leave Ed Notes or MORE lit there we get a hassle or even an attempt to throw the lit away.

This goes back to a DA in which an E4E hack, Michael Loeb, science teacher and chapter leader at the The Urban Institute Of Mathematics, put forth a resolution about restorative justice before the assembly and was received in a favorable light by the Priests presiding over the DA.

I have written about Michael Loeb in the past (here and here). But it appears that Michael is nothing more than a wolf in sheep's clothing. What or who is Michael Loeb?

Michael is a big macha (He's the treasurer!) in the E4E hierarchy as we can see here in the financials for 2016 of E4E. Does Unity/UFT know about this? Do his colleagues at UIM know about this?

Michael also seems to have passed muster with Unity/UFT in that New York Teacher felt Michael was a go to guy for a quote. Maybe the UFT knows of Michael's loyalties? Maybe it doesn't.

I am sure Campbell Brown and her crew at The 74 are well aware of Michael's loyalties. Michael was featured prominently in an article on Campbell Brown's teacher hating website.

One can question Michael's loyalties when a colleague of his at UIM that served our country admirably in the Marine Corps was besmirched. Funny how Michael wasn't quoted in this fray. (At press time The Crack Team is not sure if Michael was the CL at UIM at the time).

Heck, Michael make one wonder about the truth behind E4E's financials when he posted this plea for monies needed for E4E (Yes that is Michael doing his best Les Nessman imitation).

Michael claims (boldface mine)....

....E4E, with our over 10,000 New York and 16,000 national teachers, we take action to improve public education by meeting with elected officials, running for union leadership positions, and advocating for our education policy proposals to improve local schools. 

But what is worse, is Michael has no problem posting photos of his students at UIM and personal information such as names on his personal Twitter account (Find it yourself. I will not give Twitter handle nor link to it). For shame Michael. Putting identifying information of a student on your personal Twitter account as well as students faces.

For those that have not been paying attention of late there is a new faux education advocacy group in town.

OK maybe not new but we here just found out about them last week just before the ELA exams began. This group, High Achievement New York, is one of those so-called, "Hey we are here for the kids and the families of NYC and we are just regular people and are down with everyone else," groups.

HANY has even being playing radio spots on WCBS-AM and WINS coercing and lying to those that do not have enough information that testing really is not a major disruption and...well you know what? Let's look at the script together;

I’m  Pat Sprinkle, and I am a  New York public school teacher. If your son or daughter is in the 3rd through  8th grade,  I  want  you to know this month’s state assessments are crucial for their future. Almost two - thirds of our students graduate from high school without being ready for college or a career.  These tests are designed to fix that  – they’re a check - up to make sure all our kids are getting the  problem - solving and critical thinking skills need ed to succeed . It’s a great investment for your children  – the rules guarantee they’ll spend less than 1% of the their time on  the tests each year. Let’s give all  our students a chance at a better life. Because they deserve it.

Where to start? We can start with the fact that Pat Sprinkle is a loyal, card carrying member, of Educators 4 Excellence.

These tests do not measure problem solving nor critical thinking skills. These tests are only measure how confused and stressed out our students get.

Maybe 1 percent of students time each year is spent on taking the tests, but how much time is spent each year preparing for the tests?

But what bothers us most is while the voice over at the end of the radio spot tells the listener that the spots were paid for by HANY nowhere do we hear a voice over that HANY is majorly financed by the Gates Foundation, the same financiers that breech birthed E4E.

Yes to a lay person it might seem cynical to imply that Gates monies are pulling the strings. We can give the benefit of the doubt and say that Gates donated to a true grass roots organization. We can. We shan't.

The Crack Team did a WhoIs search of HANY's url (Web address) and came up with bupkus. The information the WhoIs came up with showed many a layer hiding the true owners of the web address. Why?

We then googled the telephone # we found on the HANY blog, 212-681-1380 and found out that that is the main number for Mercury LLC a public affairs/lobbying firm in Manhattan.  Heck, Mercury LLC is the public affairs firm for Campbell Brown's Partnership for Educational Justice! Mercury is also a registered lobbyist in NYC.

It gets deeper.

When The Crack Team spoke with someone at Mercury LLC (More on this in a bit) we shared the address of the blog. Immediately this person read the blog. When The Crack Team checked on the blog's stat counter and the ISP comes from another public relations firm Porter Novelli which is part of the Omnicron Group.

When The Crack Team spoke with VP of Mercury LLC  Jon Weinstein the first question we asked him was who paid for the poll that is listed on HANY's blog that New Yorkers across the state are in favor of high stakes testing. Jon told The Crack Team that MercuryLLC "commissioned the survey." This is akin to McDonald's commissioning a poll to find out which fast food restaurant has better tasting burgers, McD's or Burger King only to find out McD's is the better tasting burger.

We thank Jon for his honesty but for some reason asked that the remind of question be written out in an email and he will respond. He did. But first the questions The Crack Team sent;

1. Is it possible to get a copy of the survey that is being touted by HANY?  

2. HANY appears to be coming off as a "grass roots" organization. Why hasn't HANY shared information that the Gates Foundation is it's main funder in the radio spots or the fact Mercury LLC is the force behind HANY?  

3. How many of the coalition members know that the Gates Foundation is your main funder?  

4. Is there any official relationship between HANY/Mercury and StudentsFirst, Educators 4 Excellence and Campbell Brown?  

5. When 212-630-1630 is googled why does Campbell Brown's "Partnership for Educational Justice" appear in the listings?  

6. Have any of the people who did the voice overs for the radio spots receive compensation and if so how much?  

7. Who other than the Gates Foundation has funded HANY? 

8. Has Mercury LLC done any lobbying in Albany, NYC, or Washington on behalf of Gates, StudentsFirst, DFER, PEJ, Campbell Brown, E4E, and other such organizations?

Jon replied promptly; 

High Achievement New York provides New York parents, teachers, business and community leaders with an organized platform to support the Common Core standards, which are essential for preparing our children for college and 21st century careers. 

We are transparent about where our funding comes from and who our coalition members are.
Our funders are listed in this press release, posted on our website: http://www.highachievementny.org/high_achievement_new_york_announces_stephen_sigmund_as_new_executive_director

Coalition members can be found listed at the bottom of each press release on this page: http://www.highachievementny.org/latest_news.

We are proud of the work we are doing to make sure that all of New York’s children are advancing together and learning the critical thinking and reasoning skills they need for success.

Finally, no one in our radio ads was compensated for offering their viewpoints. We appreciate your interest in High Achievement New York.

Jon didn't really answer the question did he? We emailed him back several times and he has yet to respond to what we asked him. As a former reporter for NY1 surely Jon didn't like BS and obfuscation when it was done to him.

Is it just possible that part of reason thousands of students statewide have opted out is that we are sick and tired of astro-turf groups telling us parents how our kids should be educated? Interfering with our local school boards, our teachers, our politicians? 

Time to go away HANY and all the astro-turf groups out there. Leave our children's education be. WE THE PARENTS AND THE COMMUNITES know what is best. You don't. 

Back on September 4, these pages reported on how the fake cops at OSI came to serve some papers on fellow Rubber Room prisoner Colonel Hogan.


The story is that back in the Spring, Colonel Hogan was covering the SAVE Room for one period. In the room that day was a 3rd grade girl and a 7th grade boy (The school is a K-8 school).

The 3rd grade girl claimed that during Colonel Hogan's time covering that day the 7th grade boy walked over to her and whipped out his schlong. Soon after that Colonel Hogan was removed for parts other than the school.

The notice he got was to come down to OSI and speak with them. Colonel Hogan dutifully went along with a rep from the Bronx UFT. The complaint was that he had witnessed the whipping out of said schlong and did nothing st the time nor did he report it. Tito denied ever seeing it happen and since he never saw what happened he can't report what he didn't see.

He was shown the statement by the little girl, but there was no statement from the 7th grade boy.

The OSI meeting ended and several weeks passed. His principal sent him notice to request a meeting with him and a UFT representative to be held within the walls of the Rubber Room.

The meeting came, he again denied ever being aware of any such incident and that it would be extremely difficult to report what he did not see.

The meeting ended and he went back to gen pop and the principal went on her merry way.

Just an aside. This principal is a Leadership Academy grad. She replaced a trusted and beloved principal at her school. Since her arrival she has systematically gone after veteran teachers. Over 40 teachers have left the school either under their own volition or other indignities. A pattern persists, no? Tito is a 23 year veteran teacher on the wrong side of 50 and makes way too much money. Figure it out.

So a few days after the meeting with the principal, the HR person at the Rubber Room has something for Tito. It is a disciplinary letter to the file. But that is not all.

A week or so after that he gets hit with 3020-a charges. Yep, four specifications all related to this incident.

Among the charges are;

Lack of professional fitness.

Violation of Chancellor's Regulation A-412.

Neglect of duties

Poor judgement

Created a situation in which a student can show off his schlong

Failed to supervise the male student

Failed to supervise the female student

Yeah, someone screwed up here and it was not Colonel Hogan.  Anyone care to guess?

The principal is covering her tushy for allowing a 7th grade boy into a SAVE Room with a 3rd grade girl. Who would allow such a thing to happen? Why would it happen? The principal needs a scapegoat and she picked Tito to be the fall guy. This is a man who in my opinion could not and wold not hurt anyone. That if he saw what happened or if it truly happened he would have done all in his power to stop it and/or report it.

Why would he not report it? What advantage would he have to stay silent?

On the other hand, why is this even going to a 3020-a hearing? Is this not an incredible waste of time and money? A letter in the file is not sufficient even when it is just one person's word against another?

More curious, it seems that either OSI felt there was not enough evidence to warrant any further action or that they decided to bump it down to the principal for her to take the necessary steps. If OSI didn't feel it needed further action why then did the principal have to go past a letter in the file.

It is open season again on teachers. We are sitting ducks and there is not one person out there who care. The DOE is running scared from Campbell Brown and trying to prove her wrong.

As many others were I was appalled and sickened when I picked up the Daily News and read about the deviancy with students that Brooklyn Tech "teacher" Sean Shaynak allegedly committed.

According to the Daily News, Shaynake is accused of;

• Taking a 15-year-old to a nude beach in New Jersey without permission and plying her with vodka, tequila and whisky until she passed out at his home.
• Exchanging some 10,000 text messages with that same girl, in which he asked her to participate in lesbian sex with another student and told her about his experience with a ménage-à-trois and gay sex.
• Giving another student perfect grades “regardless of the fact she did not do any assignments and left tests blank,” said prosecutor Joseph Mancino.
• Forcing himself on that 18-year-old student when she resisted his attempt at intercourse.
• Carrying on a “four-month sexual relationship” with yet another teen, which included a trip to an out-of-state gay-themed sex club where she watched him getting “serviced” by other men.
• Taking that student on what prosecutors described as a “terror ride” from Queens to Brooklyn that ended with her hiding in the bushes and her teacher screaming and banging on his car. “He threatened to tell her parents,” Mancino said.
• Sending full-frontal photos to four students, two of whom were minors.
• Storing an extensive library of pornography in his computer, which included bestiality — sex acts between humans and dogs, horses and goat.

Yes, these all seem pretty damning. If true, it would be hard to disprove the allegations in regards to the full frontal monty shot and the text messages.

But what is this person thinking? He is a teacher, trusted to teach and protect the students he is charged with. Yes, a person who does such acts does not think of others and is selfish. Pedophiles usually are. If he was this hard up for attention and physical release and/or contact there were other ways, safer ways to satisfy his perversions.

But no matter how heinous the accusations are, no matter how angry we are, as parents of the students, as teachers, as human beings, he has every right to due process, full and equal protection under the law and the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

But according to tomorrow's Daily News, Shaynak was arrested, yet not charged in the beating of an 11 year old in Maryland in 2005, yet the DOE still hired him because he wasn't convicted.

That does not make sense. Yes he wasn't convicted, yet the child he had beaten had a restraining order. Why then did the principal and the DOE hire him? Is not someone at Tweed or Brooklyn Tech culpable for hiring this man? Should this not have been a red flag? ATR's are flagged for much, much, less and don't get hired.

At a time when teachers and tenure are under attack Shaynak is quickly becoming the poster boy of Campbell Brown and Mona Davids as to why teachers should not have tenure, should not have the right to due process, and labeling all teachers and predators.

Worse, Campbell and Mona will beat the drum that even while being held awaiting to be bailed out of jail Shaynak will still be collecting a salary of around $52k. But according to the UFT contract, and something the NYC media won't let anyone know, teacher's accused of sexual misconduct have their pay suspended for 90 days. In fact Mulgrew said in the Daily News;

 “The city has the ability to remove this person from payroll,"

 The in the words of Captain Picard, "Make it so!" The onus is now on the city.

But the city won't. The city doesn't want to. Why? They need a poster boy too. The city needs someone to collect their pay and sit and stew either in jail or a Rubber Room to give fodder to those that want to debase tenure, to cry pervert at every single allegation. Worse, the city and DOE will take the longest time to bring charges to dismiss him just to give the anti-tenure crowd more ammunition.

What to do? Do what they city has done to ATR's, bring an expedited 3020-a hearing. There is no way that this investigation can take over a year. Surely, the NYPD and Brooklyn DA's office can and will share information with the DOE. Again, time for the city and DOE to put it's money where it's mouth is.

We here at SBSB call for Shaynak to do the honorable thing and fall on his sword. We call for him to resign immediately or at the very least take an unpaid leave of absence. Again, we at SBSB are reiterating what was said above. He has the right to due process and the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. But accusations such as this call for some action for the greater good to be taken.

We feel for the families of the students affected directly by Shaynak, for the families indirectly affected as well as the entire Brooklyn Tech community.

Some interesting news came across the SBSB news desk today.

A teacher, let's call him, Rudy Baylor, was teaching a class one day and reached from behind to hand a 7th grade female student a piece of paper. The student was sitting with several of her female friends. It seemed all pretty routine, huh?

The next thing Rudy knows is that he is being accused of improperly touching this girl. How? The young lady claimed that when Rudy bent down ever so slightly to hand her the paper his dingy touched the back of her shoulder.

The girl immediately reported this, not to the principal, but rather to school safety.  School safety had no other choice but to call in NYPD. Thank God that the officers that responded were well trained and able to think independently, Rudy was not charged.

This was in March; Rudy was immediately sent to the Rubber Room, he got cleared today. Six months later.

This could not have been cleared up within a week? Two weeks? Who suffered here? The students did. The students were without their teacher for the last 3 months of last year and so far 2 weeks off this year.

Yet, the Three Stooges of education reform in New York State, Campbell Brown, Mona Davids, and Sam Pirozzolo would lead you to believe that the long investigative process is the fault of the teachers and the union that "protects teachers."

Without that union that "protects teachers" Rudy Baylor would have been out on his buttocks no questions, no nothing asked nor rights protected. Rudy is a single father, without the protections put in place by the collective bargaining agreement and state law, Rudy would have had to go collecting cans so his son could eat.

But according to the Stooge like troika, Rudy even though he has been cleared can still be in jeopardy. The Stooges, if they have their way, would force any decision if a teacher is cleared of sexual misconduct to be given a thumbs or or thumbs down decision made by the chancellor.

On what facts would a chancellor bases such a life altering decision? Would certain teachers be in or out of favor? Would there be some type of checks and balances? Can decisions made by the chancellor be appealed (Other than Article 78)?

The truth was seen in Rudy's case not because the union protects bad teachers. But rather the union is there to make sure and enforce that all teachers are afforded their contractual rights, state rights, and due process as spelled out in the United States Constitution.

It seems this girl had an agenda and didn't want Rudy Baylor around anymore. Kids are smart. They know how to manipulate the system and know how to make a teacher's life miserable.

If the chancellor has a final say on all sexual misconduct accusations it will be ripe for abuse. It'll be like yelling, "fire!" in a crowded theater.

In yesterday's New York Post there was an article pertaining to some bashing on Twitter that
Campbell Brown fell prey to last week.

As the Post reported;

"Former CNN anchor Campbell Brown, a leading opponent of teacher tenure, accused her pro-teacher-union foes Sunday of using soft-core Twitter porn to shamelessly smear her."

Smear? Harsh, but one must read on. Accusing "pro-teacher union foes"? Even harsher.

First let's go on record here that we here at SBSB do not condone in any way, shape, or form the alleged vulgarities tossed Campbell Brown's way. We find it abhorrent and certainly not helpful We also do not condone any attacking of her children personally.

As for as her husband, Dan Senor, we feel that since he is a public figure, has served on the board of StudentsFirstNY, and is culpable for the mess in Iraq, he is fair game. But right now that is neither here no there.

The Post also mentioned a real anti-Campbell Twitter account and it's corresponding website in the article. Why they lumped that in is clear. Seems the Post wishes to discredit a real site aimed at real issues that had to be debunked by the Post's propaganda machine.

But something reeks in the State of Denmark vis a vis the Post and Campbell's stories.

We here became of aware of this on Friday, and pointed it out to many (That all was a hoax), when we saw tweets from @datadiva;



Now the stench is getting stronger.
One tweet seems to come from right wing, Tea Partier Congressman Louie Gohmert, but the handle is different than the congressman's. The Crack Team at first thought that someone had either hacked or spoofed the congressman's account.

The same with NewsMax Health, @mort_mcgirt, alleging to be NewsMax Health. For those that aren't aware, NewsMax is a right wing weekly news magazine.

So what you have is tweets from two accounts appearing to be from right wingers attacking the right wing dream; no more tenure for teachers, a stink bomb, no? And even if they were super-duper hard left liberals, we here at SBSB have never seen such invective from such people.

Yet, on the same scale, neo-liberal, Elevate New Mexico commented even though not one of these tweets were directed to him, nor even found on his timeline or tweeted to any of his allies (The usual cast of deform characters), was able to locate these tweeters through all of the 1000's of tweets.

A new member of The Crack Team, Wanda, representing the Southern Tier of New York State accessed the SBSB computers and came to the conclusion that all the accounts above, including @derpjonson, all used the same syntax. The Crack Team found out all are followed or followers of @gomurica as well. Perhaps they all can very well can be the same person?

OK, fine, if they are the same person, or not, why? What is the point. And why was Randi Weingarten mentioned in the tweets? How coincidental that these tweets were out within a few days of the launch of "The Real Campbell Brown" website? A website in which Campbell's lackeys are whining about profusely and can't even refute any facts.

Wanda, along with the rest of The Crack Team and many others have opined that this was all a set up. That these tweets, these twitter handles, were all devised by Campbell Brown's people to not only discredit the righteous, but worse, to make Campbell Brown a victim and to garner sympathy. This alone just goes to show how low Campbell Brown will sink to have her name bandied about in a flattering manner. Nothing, is about the plaintiffs in this Wright V New York State. It is all Campbell, all the time.

Why, and we have it on good authority that the United States Capitol Police have been notified, that USCP has not shut down the accont impersonating  Congressman Gohmert? Why haven't the twitter accounts of the offending tweets mentioned in the Post been shut down? Without a doubt, the rules of Twitter have been violated. So who can be behind all this?

Only someone with the connections of Campbell Brown along with the powerful PR handlers on her side can orchestrate such a devious plot. A plot to shine the blue light of sympathy upon her and to shame any and all connected with teachers unions. This is a new low for Campbell Brown, but sure enough will be followed by new even lower lows. How else to explain how the Post got all over this?

And if this were a real attack on Campbell Brown we here at SBSB feel those behind it are the lowest of the low and have done damage. But everything seems all too coincidental.

One way or the other something smells like crawfish cooking in Acadiana. Right, Alma?

Earlier in the week when I heard that Campbell Brown was to appear on The Colbert Report I kind of cringed.

I am not a fan of Stephen Colbert's schtick on the show (Though there are some bits I have enjoyed), though I do like him, and more of a fan of The Daily Show. But two things had be concerned.

One was how would Colbert's schtick work with a topic like tenure and education in general, and would real questions be asked. I liked what I watched. A few moments really stood out for me.

When asked by Colbert about  Campbell why she has her guns out for unions and why Partnership for Education Justice has filed it's lawsuit, Brown said; "First let me correct something you said, we are not filing the lawsuit, it is 7 parents in New York State that have kids in public schools are filing the law suit. We are helping them and supporting them. We are finding them law firms." 

That PEJ and herself are not giving any monies but rather, assisting.

Of course there is no money changing hands. But a query Are the parents being paid or reimbursed any expenses incurred while in the midst of this lawsuit? Are food and hotels and travel being reimbursed by the law firm, Campbell Brown, or PEJ? These questions are important. Did these parents seek out PEJ on their own, or were they sought out. If they were sought out how many have volunteered and/or have been employed by Students First? We do know that the lead plaintiff, Keoni Wright was employed by SF at one time.

Campbell even shares that the law firm, Kirkland Ellis, is representing the parents pro bono, but how did these parents know to seek out this particular law firm?

But as I am watching this I am wondering to myself why is Campbell the one being interviewed? Why not the parents from Rochester who "handled" themselves so well with Glen Beck? In fact how did two families from Rochester know to seek out the above NYC law firm?

The best was when Colbert shared that protestors were outside the studios, something which he said has been quite rare. Campbell must have been upset that the spotlight was being taken away from her. The protestors are, according to Campbell; ..."trying to silence a debate. A debate we should be having. I want these parents to have a voice in this debate too."

We are trying to silence debate? How many people has Campbell blocked (#blockedbycampbellbrown )on Twitter? Blocked from multiple Facebook pages? 

But if the parents should have a role in this debate, and no one is denying that, then why then is Campbell the face and voice of the parents? Why not let the parents speak freely? 

"What they are trying to do is to change a public education system in this country that people across the political spectrum believes his in crisis." 

No, it never was in crisis, the crisis was related. See The Shock Doctrine. Campbell and her lackies do not represent my views nor anyone else that I know. Want to see a crisis? We have it in underfunded schools districts, corrupt school districts, and pure incompetency in Albany.

So when asked what is the problem in New York, Campbell replies to Colbert; "If you look at the student outcomes in New York, 91% of the teachers around the State of New York are rated either effective or highly effective. Yet 31% of our kids are reading, writing and doing, math at grade level."

There is a difference between being proficient and being at grade level. How dare she judge by test scores, how dare she base her lawsuit on flawed exams. Exams with a cut score picked at random. 

She is insulting me as a parent and my son as a student. As I have said on these pages in the past he got high 2's in 2013 after years of getting 3's and 4. He, and many others in his grade, were not able to finish 2 days the ELA exam in 2013. My son and plenty like him are at or above grade level. He is entering 8th grade at above grade level in both ELA and Math. Campbell needs to get her facts straight very quickly. 

"I'm blaming the teachers union. Because they are fighting attempts to change laws that are anachronistic."

There we have it. This fight is about unions and to destroy unions, to destroy teaching as a career, and to be rid of pensions.

But Colbert comes back and asks her if all should be equal, shouldn't each child have the same amount of money spent on them? She blabbers; "You're suggesting it's all about the money," when Colbert says, "You're saying it's all about it's equality and money is one of the equations in equality."

SNAP! PW3NED! But she turns it into this, "We should pay teachers more and treat teachers like professionals" Yeah, right.She did not want to talk about money. Why should she. Her boys, Clifford and Harvey go to a school in which their milk is served to them in chilled milk glasses and lunch time is accompanied by a pianist.

When asked about who gets to evaluate teachers she says principals, and parents, especially if they are complaining there must be something to that.

But parents and others are complaining about what Campbell is doing right now and she is not listening. Mustn't there be something to this? 

Lastly when Colbert asks where the money comes from Campbell says that to share that would keep that secret because of the people protesting are "going to go after people who are trying to fund."

The Walton Family, Students First, The Gates Foundation, et. al. are afraid of a bunch of teachers? I can understand if a little old Jewish lady who lives on Sadore Lane in Yonkers and gave $18 a month would be afraid, but the elite of American largess being afraid? Surely Campbell jests. 

Or is possible this blogger found out where the money comes from? 

This thing happening in New York is a last gasp effort for the deformers to get their way. A first year, pre-law, high school student should be able to expose and poke holes in both the Mona Davids' case and Campbell's as well.

I see now why Campbell is leading this and not Michelle Rhee. Campbell comes off as much more likeable than Rhee and does not have all the skeletons that Rhee had in her closet. We must not relent with Campbell Brown. We must stand firm, must stand strong. Campbell is much more media savvy and much more cunning. But she can, and must, be defeated.

With all the talk of the lawsuit Campbell Brown and her lackies Mona Davids and Sam Pirozzolo have brought forth, the reason to explain tenure has never been more important than ever.

This story came into the DTOE newsroom a few weeks ago., and posted on DTOE this past Tuesday. This is one of the most heinous examples of teacher abuse and abuse of power The Crack Team has heard of. In fact, Crack Team member Moose was so upset he was crying like a baby while sucking his thumb and calling for his mother.

This story, told from the teacher involved, has all the markings of what  the problem really lies in education. Not the teachers, but the ones in charge, the ones making the decisions.

The letter to follow (In it's entirety) was originally sent to High Schools Superintendent Donald Conyers. Donald was at the forefront of damage to this teacher (here and here).

Coincidentally, Conyers worked closely with DR Mychael Willon. He of the false PhD and the arrest for sexual deviancy in Wichita KS.

This teacher was a first year teacher, a Fellow and a cancer survivor. If she had tenure, would she, could she, have been discontinued?

Another story is coming soon, even more egregious.

Read on;

Several names have been redacted.
—————-
Donald Conyers
Superintendent
Brooklyn and Queens High School
6565 Flatlands Avenue, Room 104C
Brooklyn, New York 11236

Dear Mr. Conyers:

I am saddened that our first communication is under the given circumstances. However, I am elated by the fact that you have given me an opportunity to express my concerns to you at this time.  This year has been in fact quite challenging but has left me with the knowledge that there is no other field in which I would wish to find myself.  I never would have imagined how much I would have learned while teaching and I am grateful for each moment.

On July 5, 2014 I received a letter from your office stating that I was being reviewed for potential discontinuance. Frankly, given the year that I have faced I was not entirely surprised.  I offer you a chronology of the events in my year so that you can understand my perspective as best as possible.
I am licensed under the Transitional B Certification through the alternative program known as the New York City Teaching Fellows for Special Education for grades 7 through 12.  I was placed at the School for International Studies (i.e. 15k497) for my summer assignment.  During this time I sought employment while teaching summer school to a mixed group of middle school students.  Throughout the subsequent weeks, I made many connections with the students and built rapport.  By the second week I was being asked by the students to seek employment at the school.  In August, I was called in for an interview with the principal, Jillian Juman, and the head of the Special Education Department and Lead Teacher, Nicole Lanzillotto.  When offered the position I excitedly accepted and prepared for the upcoming school year.

On September 3, 2013 I received my rosters, classroom locations, and schedule.  I was told that I would be teaching 7^th grade ICT English Language Arts, 8^th grade ICT English Language Arts, 7^th grade ICT Humanities, and Self-Contained English Language Arts/ Humanities.  When reviewing the rosters for my classes I found that my middle school self-contained class had fifteen students without a classroom paraprofessional (See Exhibit A).  Under the Special Education laws of New York State the class size should be of the following ratio: 12:1:1.  Of my fifteen students included on the roster, three of them were classified as alternate assessment (See Exhibit B) and the class was a conglomerate of sixth, seventh, and eighth graders of varying levels.  Further, I was placed in an AP Statistics classroom in the high school wing to teach self-contained, middle school English.
In October, I found myself struggling to direct the classroom and sought help from my Chapter Leader, Ms. R.  Upon explaining the dynamics of the classroom she informed me that the class should be no more than 12 unless a waiver was filed by the school for 13 and that that was the absolute maximum.  The following day, on my way to sign out, I was approached by both Ms. Juman and Ms. Lanzillotto who said to me, “Ms. R says you are unhappy”.  I explained to them that it was not that I was unhappy but that I felt that the students were not benefitting from the dynamics of the setting and that it was not conducive to a learning environment.  Further, it was illegal and violated Special Education regulations. Ms. Lanzillotto chimed in to state that the classroom dynamic was not in violation of Special Education regulations, despite my research having stated otherwise. Ms. Juman then informed me that she would be “fixing” the situation in time for the new semester when we would be facing program changes as an entire school.  She then asked if I would write a letter stating that I was comfortable with the arrangement of the roster as it stood and in good faith knew that it would only last until January.

Immediately after having completed the aforementioned conversation I sought the advice of Ms. R, who informed me that the conversation and request were inappropriate. After speaking to my mentor, Mr.  P, he reiterated the same sentiments as Ms. R and advised me against writing the letter.
When I realized the roster would not be changing to suit the needs of the students or the classroom environment I sought the help of Ms. Lanzillotto and asked her to visit my classroom.  On October 9, 2013 Ms. Lanzillotto sat in my classroom for about ten minutes prior to pulling out a student of mine, Student A.  On October 10, 2013 I received an email from Ms. Lanzillotto stating that Student A’s schedule would be changed effective immediately and that she had undergone a re-evaluation (See Exhibit C).  In this email exchange you will notice that the school’s Speech Language Pathologist questions when the re-evaluation had taken place, which was a question the rest of the department had, as well.  Student A was then placed into my ICT English Language Arts class, and she immediately began expressing her discomfort with the material that was being presented in the ICT setting.  She then asked to meet with me and expressed a request to be returned to a self-contained setting.  I advised her to speak to Ms. Lanzillotto regarding her concerns and encouraged her to advocate for herself.  By October 21, 2013 Ms. Lanzillotto informed the staff via email that Student A would in fact remain in Self-Contained Language Arts stating, “[This] is what Student A thinks is good for her right now”.

After I spoke to Ms. R about my concerns for Student A and other students, she approached Ms. Juman and asked why a more seasoned teacher had not been placed in the self-contained setting so that I may learn from my ICT partnerships.  Ms. Juman responded by saying, “[Ms. S] is sickly and cannot handle the pressures of a self-contained setting.” Ms. R then said that I also have health concerns which include Thyroid Cancer which required two surgeries and radiation and Lupus to which Ms. Juman responded, “yes, but, she’s younger”.  Therefore, it was simply assumed that because of my age I was better fit for the task instead of the veteran teacher with 24 years of teaching experience.

Shortly after the incident involving Student A, Ms. R began following up with Ms. Lanzillotto and Ms. Juman about the class size.  At this time they told her that they actually obtained a waiver for 13 students.  Ms. R asked to see this waiver and was given an application rather than a waiver which had not been granted. Ms. R reiterated that even with a waiver, 15 students was outside the regulations.  Ms. Lanzillotto and Ms. Juman then began asking me daily for my thoughts on which students were ready to be moved into the ICT setting.  Given the students’ reading, writing, and intellectual levels I disagreed that any of the students were ready for the change in setting.  A second concern regarding class size came to light when my roster for 9^th period Intervention was released.

According to Special Education Law my roster size should have consisted of five students. Rather, I was given ten (See Exhibit D). On November 13, 2013 I sent an email to my mentor, Mr. P informing him of this placement being against regulation, to which he did not respond.  That same day I received an email from Mrs. Assante, the principal’s secretary asking that a weekly meeting be set with her (See Exhibit E).  I approached Mrs. Assante and she stated the nature of the meetings were to discuss my lesson plans and for Ms. Juman to collect the week’s worth each Monday.  Around this time I was observed twice a week and had met the minimum of six by November’s end, by January of 2014 I had reached a count of approximately 19.  After consulting with Ms. R she stated that ritualized collection of lesson plans was a violation of our contractual rights and advised me to send an email asking about the nature of these meetings.

My email of November 13, 2013 was ignored and the following day I received another email from Mrs. Assante dated November 14, 2013 requesting that I schedule the time for the meetings (See Exhibit E).  I responded by reiterating my initial concerns.  Later that day I was approached by Ms. Juman who stated to me, “Stacey thinks you are scared to meet with me”.  I explained to her that my feelings should never be inferred and that I merely wanted in writing the nature of these appointments especially given that they were recurring.  The following day I received a schedule for these meetings which would last from November until January.  In January I was told that my lesson plans finally reached the principal’s level of satisfaction (See Exhibit F) and she began to decrease the meetings and collection of lesson plans.  In the end I can say that forcing me to complete these lessons so far in advance and in such detail served to benefit my classroom in that I was planning ahead, however given the varying levels of advancement of the students made it useless and I felt uncomfortable with the manner in which it was done.

I was granted the day off for December 2, 2013 for a doctor appointment (See Exhibit G).  On this same date the Special Education Department met as a whole to discuss which students could potentially be moved out without consulting me.  I was emailed that day by Ms. Lanzillotto (See Exhibit G) asking for my input.  Given the inappropriate nature of this request I did not respond.  When I arrived at work the following day, December 3, 2013 a student, Student B, greeted me in the ICT setting.  Prior to Student B having been moved out of the self-contained setting Student C, a second candidate had been moved out, as well.  The program switch for Student C was in fact based on my recommendation since based on her IEP and according to her mother, she was placed in self-contained based on her emotional disturbance and not based on her intellectual ability.  Upon meeting Student C who came into our school for eighth grade, I determined that the curricula of my Self-Contained Language Arts and Humanities were causing her harm, that it was not challenging enough.  As of December 3, 2013 I had thirteen students on the roster.

Looking at Exhibit H, you will note that my seventh period Self-Contained Language Art’s roster was set at 13 and that by eighth period two students were sent to have Physical Education for the second time in the day so that my class size was at 11 for the end of the day. The executive decisions made by my Administration were not out of the best interest of the students and were in fear that I would file a grievance.  Given the constant observations, ritualized collection of my lesson plans, and lack of tenure I refrained from filing a grievance. Frankly, I was more concerned with meeting my students’ needs more than my own. The above mentioned lack of action on my part was also in good faith that the situation would be rectified.

An incident occurred on November 21, 2013 (See Exhibit I) in connection with my roster being too large in 9^th period Intervention.  Two students attempted to touch me inappropriately and a third student in an attempt to defend me, slammed into my face.  This occurred after I had asked that my class size be readjusted.  In response to this matter, the Assistant Principal, Renato DaSilva instructed me to fill out a written statement with the dean, a Victim’s Report through UFT, and to email the details of the incident to the appropriate staff members.  The principal, Ms. Juman was not in that day and requested a meeting with me the following school day.  Ms. DaSilva approached me on November 22, 2013 during fourth period and asked that I meet with both Administrators for an impromptu meeting.

During this meeting Ms. Juman stated to me that I should have reconsidered teaching given that I am “pretty” and that incidences like the above are bound to happen. She continued to say that I should possibly stop wearing makeup so that I am less attractive.  She also stated, “[you] give students the wrong impression when you close the door of your classroom”.  She then asked what I thought would be an appropriate punishment given that the infraction was “small”.  She then suggested that I meet with the two young men along with Mr. DaSilva to discuss boundaries and that that would be punishment enough.  She then scolded me for filing a report with the Victim’s Unit and asked me why I had done so.  At this point, I made eye contact with Mr. DaSilva and remained silent until he described the actions he had taken the day before.  I was then told to leave so that she could discuss with Mr. DaSilva where he had misled me.  The students were never reprimanded but were supposedly taken out of my intervention.

On December 13, 2013 I received an updated list of the roster for Intervention with no visible changes having been made (See Exhibit J).  I attempted questioning the decision via email as you may note on page two of the email labeled “MS Roster Updates for Enrichment – MS Enrichment ONLY!” (Exhibit I)  My requests were ignored and on December 2, 2013 I received an email labeled Student D (See Exhibit K) where it was stated that Student D, one of the students involved in the November 21, 2013 incident would be moved into my ICT despite the fact that he did not have an IEP.  When I expressed my concern, Mr. P, my mentorresponded as follows, “Unfortunately, this decision was made last week by Administration.  We need to keep Student E and Student D separated for both their successes”.  Although I applaud the fact that my Administration has taken steps towards putting the needs of the students at the forefront, I do question where the support for assaulted teachers comes into consideration. At the end of December I had a discussion with Ms. Juman during which I asked if I could be released should I find another school.  Ms. Juman responded that she was not willing to do so and that she hired me and therefore would help me and attempt to alleviate the burdens I was feeling.  I expressed that I did not feel my job was secure while at this school and she reiterated her stance of hiring me and building me up.

In January, before the program changes occurred, the Special Education Department sat together and members were paid per session to amend all IEPs so that they matched the programs we offered but, did not meet the needs of our students.  I was told I would not be invited to the paid sessions by Ms. Lanzillotto given that, “you haven’t learned how to amend IEPs”.  This contributed to the lowered roster where I found I had eleven students for the new semester and under the new program. In doing the above mentioned, the needs of our students were compromised and ignored in order to be in accordance with the laws governing classroom sizes.

In January of 2014 I was given a classroom to design myself and had 11 students on my roster.  I thought my relationship with the principal had improved and my evaluations increasingly improved, as well (See Exhibit L).  In terms of my pedagogy I was told I had shown the most improvement out of any first year she had witnessed.  To improve my classroom environment I took steps in using research based Positive Behavior Supports (See Exhibit M).  I sought the advice of my professor from St. John’s University and together devised two Positive Behavior Supports.  The first is known as “Secret Student”.  During this time I pull at random the name of a student and follow his or her behavior throughout the class.  At any given time I may say, “I’m looking for my secret student!  I wonder if s/he is on task” and with that the students would all return to task.  At the end, if the student had behaved, I would reward him or her with a homemade scratch off card and a certificate.  If the student did not perform well I would allow it to remain a secret.

The second Positive Behavior Support I utilized in my classroom was “Ca$h it in”, a ticket system.  For every twenty minutes I was able to get through my lesson without interruption I would award the class with twenty tickets that could be redeemed for a class prize.  Individually, students could also win tickets for the possibility of being “Most Valuable Student”.  The class received a pizza party on April 4, 2014.  The great aspect of this particular support was that it allowed me to build a behavioral contract with the students and there was student choice evident in the process and execution. My rapport with my students greatly improved and my overall reputation amongst students was that I was kind, caring, and fun.  I received apologetic letters from students who misbehaved and even notes and cards from grateful parents (See Exhibit N).

In March, I was shocked to have received three disciplinary letters in the same week and found that the allegations stemmed from students who had done poorly in my class.  The first letter stemmed from miscommunication between a student’s paraprofessional, Ms. B, and the rest of the class.  On March 25, 2014 a Career Panel was held in the library.  I escorted my Self-Contained class to the library for third period.  At the sound of the bell they were dismissed for lunch and I remained in the library to have lunch with the panelists.  Before the bell was going to ring for the start of fifth period and when my Self-Contained class reconvenes I looked around the library and noted that all of the students had gone to the lunchroom previously.  Upon reaching my classroom I only had three students waiting for me including a student’s paraprofessional, Ms. B.  I asked where the rest of the students had gone and Ms. B informed me that she misunderstood the directive and told them to go to the library after they lined up outside my classroom door (i.e. Room 130).

I returned to the library where the principal and the college advisor, Ms. M, were eating with three students.  In the disciplinary letter, the principal counts the three students, who are high school students as adults.  I found the rest of my students without a teacher in the library playing video games and talking in the back on the computers.  I asked them, “What are you guys doing?  Let’s go.”  The students immediately closed out their games, apologized to me and joined me in walking over to the classroom to begin class.  Shortly after, I received notice for a meeting during which the principal claimed I had not done my duty and that I had left the students unaccompanied in the library although they had come in towards the tail-end of lunch, which is also my duty-free lunch.  Once she realized that she had gotten the order of events chronologically wrong she then went on to talk to me about the tone I used.  Tone is subjective and further the feelings of the students should not have been inferred.  If anything, she should have taken statements from the students as well as the college adviser, Ms. Martinez.  Further, as the principal, upon seeing the students were in the library without a teacher she should have directed them to go to class and to close out the games. Shortly after a letter was added to my file for the above described incident Ms. Martinez volunteered to write a letter detailing her recollection of the events (See Exhibit Q). This meeting was immediately followed by a second meetingwhich I shall continue to detail below.

In November, shortly after the assault incident, Ms. Juman approached my student, Student C, who had defended me from the assault and asked her about my “mental stability”.  The following day Student C approached me to tell me about the exchange after the end of third period. I listened to Student C’s recollection of what had transpired.  When she had finished I thanked her for expressing her feelings to me and told her to go to lunch before she missed the deliverance of food.  I coincidentally had a meeting scheduled with Ms. Juman for fourth period during which I asked her about the exchange and she explained to me that she heard I cried after the assault and wanted to know if I were mentally strong enough for the job.  I explained to her that she crossed a boundary in doing so and that I found it completely unprofessional to have approached an emotionally disturbed student, or any student for that matter, to discuss the mental state of a teacher.  She then apologized for having potentially hurt my feelings and undermining me. She went on to say I must understand she was doing her due diligence to ensure that her students were safe.

In March, Student C began skipping my Intervention and when I approached her about the matter she stated she was better off going home early and that was what her parents preferred. I have included a look into Student C’s behavior as Exhibit O. I then advised Student C that she must bring a note from her parents stating what she had told me or that she attempt to make it to class.  After this incident she continued to skip the class and I ultimately failed her.  In my disciplinary meeting on March 27, 2014, Ms. Juman showed me a statement from Student C stating that I have “had it out for her” since [October] following the incident and that I threatened to tell Ms. Juman’s boss about the incident.  Ms. Juman reassured me that she remembered our discussion in November and that she simply was following protocol when a student requests to write a complaint.  In short, I was told that I was safe yet I received a letter with a consequence that did not match the initial allegation.

Further, if I were to have had a damaged relationship with Student C why would I have waited until March to affect her grades (See Exhibit P).  The initial accusation is that I bullied Student C for information but instead received a letter for professional misconduct for stating, “I’m going to tell Ms. Juman’s boss”.  Furthermore, the consensus that Ms. Juman reached on her own is based entirely on a statement written by Victoria, without consideration of what I had to say and did not rely on any other information to reach her conclusion.  There was no proof of Student C having been intimidated by me, because I didn’t, and is based on what is being collected four months after the alleged incident.  Lastly, she mentions that I have to set clear boundaries with students in the letter however, a clear boundary was crossed when she opened a discussion with a student about a teacher’s mental stability.

A few weeks following this meeting, Student C and I were on great terms, again.  Shortly after receiving her new marking period grades she was promptly switched out of my Intervention and the failing grade I had given her was expunged from her record (See Exhibit P).  She excitedly showed me her grades for she had been improving when I noticed the change in grade.  I did not comment on the change.

Shortly after, in April, I found out that I was being investigated for verbal abuse against another student, Student F. This accusation came shortly after I had called home to inform his father that he was misbehaving and that as a representative of all of his teachers this was a recurring theme across his classes.  The day of the meeting his father accused me of mistreating Student F.  After this meeting, Ms. Lanzillotto, a teacher, approached a paraprofessional to write a statement against me.  My understanding is that according to regulation, only a dean or an administrator has the right to request official statements.  According to a subsequent statement written by Ms. B, the paraprofessional, dated April 11, 2014 she was coerced into writing false allegations and was given a series of leading questions (See Exhibit Q).

After Student F made his allegations against me his behavior began to decline further and he was unable to perform the tasks necessary to pass my class.  I tried using Positive Behavior Supports with Student F including a school wide system known as “Jag Bucks” to reinforce adaptive behavior.  Student F was unfortunately unresponsive and ultimately the guidance counselor thought it best to remove him from the classroom.

On May 20, 2014  I received an email from Nicole Lanzillotto stating that a discussion revolving around Student F’s placement would be discussed after a couple of months of speculation that he would benefit from a different environment (See Exhibit R).  During the subsequent meeting it was introduced that he would have to be placed into the sixth grade ICT class.  Ms. S, the veteran Special Educator who co-taught said ICT, who was mentioned earlier in this letter stated, “Over my dead body, that boy will disrupt everything that I have done in that class”.  At this point, I asked for further support in terms of encouraging Student F to complete his work however, my pleas went unnoticed by the Administration and Nicole Lanzillotto, the head of the Special Education Department.
Afterwards, my entire Self-Contained Language Arts class was interrogated regarding my relationship with Student F. I have included my documentation of Student F’s behavior as Exhibit R. 

Student G, an alternate assessment student in my class approached me at the start of 9^th period Intervention stating that he was scared.  He then continued to describe that all of the students of my class had been interviewed by both Administrators and stated, “They asked me if you ever cursed out Student F and he’s trying to get you fired” in front of a room of several other students.  I immediately alerted Mr. DaSilva of this situation given that now the integrity of the investigation has been compromised.  A second accusation arose from this stating that I sent a student to attack Student F Valle.

During the subsequent meeting I was told by Mr. DaSilva that he had interviewed the student who allegedly bullied Student F, Student H.  I was told that Student H had stated he overheard from Student I about the investigation regarding Student F and on his own accord decided to confront Student F.  Mr. DaSilva reiterated that the allegation solely was about Student H and that I would not receive a letter for some other nuanced issue that may have arisen.  Needless to say, I received a fourth letter added to my file dated July 3, 2014 where that promise had not been kept.  Once again, I was, and am, concerned about the inappropriateness of interviewing students with emotional disturbances and with intellectual disabilities.  Further, why is it that I had to deal with the ramifications of the Administrators’ inability to run an investigation that is not compromised?  I had now become the scapegoat for their mismanagement of the investigation process.  In the letter dated July 3, 2014 I noticed quotes from statements that never been shown to me nor my Chapter Leader, Ms. R including, “Ms. V. came to the classroom and started talking about Student F and that he is a liar and that he is not a good kid.”

During my Summative Meeting I requested Ms. R to join me as my chapter leader. Ms Juman spoke of my pedagogy highly and criticized my practices under Domain 4.  At this time she brought up my preference sheet (Exhibit S), which on the top includes my stance of “uncertain” in terms of returning to the school.  I explained that once again I felt that my career was in jeopardy especially given that I received three letters in the matter of a week.  She told me, in front of my union representation that the letters were simply for me to learn from and that, “no one is out to get you, I want you to stay here.  Please, keep me updated if you still decide to go elsewhere”.  Ms. R asked Mr. DaSilva why I had not received a counseling memo instead to which he responded, “The Network says we can no longer give those out.” My chapter leader then voiced that I would continue to search for employment.  After having left this meeting I felt alleviated and trusted Ms. Juman’s word.
Less than a week after I received the Letter of Possible Discontinuance I received an updated package, which now stated my license could possibly be terminated. Because I voiced concern for the needs of my students I am being dealt a difficult card and an ultimatum.  I am alarmed and concerned for my future as an educator.  As I mentioned earlier, this is where I see myself until retirement, in a classroom serving our students and showing them a love for learning.

Please note that as an educator my value was not questioned by the Administration.  I created well differentiated, well developed lesson plans.  The classroom environment was supportive of student learning and accommodating.  Please refer to Exhibit U where I have enclosed an image of my bulletin board with clearly tiered assignment and the outcome for one of my alternate assessment students, Student J. Student J had a very poor attendance rate and could not write a well-constructed paragraph, let alone an essay.  She presented difficulties when expressing the main idea and finding supporting details.  I found that she was highly interested in the topic of bullying and therefore assigned her the topic of bullying and suicide.  She created an argumentative essay based on the topic which I have enclosed (Exhibit T).

Refer to Exhibit N where I have enclosed a letter from a parent speaking of my impact on her son as well as notes from students.  My delivery of lessons allowed for open discussion and personal growth across my students.  Although the Principal had given me a 1 (i.e. ineffective) for Participating in the Community under Domain 4 I worked hard to support my community.  I ran study hall after school for several months.  I tutored students and aided them in completing projects even if they were for courses outside my own.

I also facilitated zero period credit recovery for high school students who were lacking credits.  In September after our staff retreat I aided in recreating the activities for those staff members who were unable to attend and facilitated the activities after school.  I volunteered in October to speak at a school recruitment fair, for which I received a letter dated October 18, 2013 (See Exhibit U).  In May I received a note from Ms. Juman thanking me for helping other staff members with their bulletin boards when I was given two days’ notice that I would be given one to complete (See Exhibit U).  On March 26, 2014 I also led a Special Education Department Meeting, see the attached agenda found in Exhibit U.  On most days I would be found leaving the school around seven after planning, preparing materials for my class, or helping students in study hall.  According to Danielson the above mentioned description of the duties I completed can be described as at least a 3 (effective).

Overall, I have inherited an experience I would not trade. However, I do believe that given my overall rating of Developing; my overall rapport with students; and my drive to come up with innovative methods to increase student engagement, that I should not have my license terminated.  This year has been a trying one but I believe that in the right environment, with the appropriate supports I can grow to become an even better educator.  I view myself as a lifelong learner and hope to grow in this field and master my trade. Throughout my year at School for International Studies I have been consistently given disciplinary notices instead of supports.  Is it not the onus of the Administration to ensure that I succeed? I would much prefer discontinuance rather than a termination of my license, as harsh of a punishment as it may be, so that I may start anew elsewhere and learn from the mistakes I have committed this past year and remain in the classroom.
Sincerely,

Special Educator

There you have it. It's sad. 

So today, it was Campbell Brown's turn to have her moment of attention in Albany. She , along with her followers, er, parents, filed a lawsuit today, Wright v NY, (In fact the lead plaintiff was written about on these pages in 2012) attempting to do away with tenure and due process for teachers. We know it is a frivolous lawsuit, we know that it's a copycat lawsuit, we know that MichelleRheeFirst and Wall Street are behind it and we know that those, like Campbell Brown and Mona Davids are desperate for relevancy and attention.

About a month or so ago when Campbell announced her intentions, she cited a family in Rochester that was allegedly treated appallingly by their daughter's (Then in 7th grade) teacher after the girl (The girl's name, as well as the family's name and teacher's name will not be published here) had written an essay about Fredrick Douglas.

The Nation of Islam has shared their version of the story. What happened? According to the story the student was;

...recently forced to endure the chastisement of her teachers, principal, and other school administrators for her response to a district-wide activity where students were asked to read The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave, and write a brief essay explaining what the narrative meant to them.

Why? The student;

...composed a powerful essay comparing her own educational experiences with those of Douglass. Like him, she lamented that her peers did not like to read, and how difficult it was to obtain a decent education.

Hey, if she can write such a powerful essay, something very right must be happening in the classroom, no?

So what is the problem? It seems that;

According to the girl and her family, the following day the teacher approached Jada and stated that she was offended by what the student wrote.

When the student asked her why she was offended, the teacher stated that the student had used the term “White teachers,” according to the family.

The student says she told the teacher that she was talking about another teacher. The teacher’s response was, “Don’t talk about my colleague like that! Have you ever had a Black teacher? Did she teach you?” according to the young girl.

Remember the game telephone? This story can seem somewhat fantastical.

According to sources deep within the Rochester schools, the teacher said two things to the student. The teacher mentioned that she was disappointed that the student decided to paint all teachers will the same brush and that the student was stereotyping teachers. The teacher also asked the student;
"Don't I care about you?"

The teacher in question cared very much for the student. She was doing as any good teacher, or adult was doing, or I have, when dealing with a student or our child.

We try to impart that to make a blanket statement about a group of people is wrong. Not only that, but we need to base our statement, especially when we write or give our opinion, not supposition but on facts. The teacher was doing her job, the same way any parent would do, or the same way our employer would ask us to do if we had written something.

According to sources,  the student went home and mentioned this to mom. Either the student did not tell the whole story or did, and the proper context was not used, but the mom still got quite upset.

Our sources shared that even though the student loved the teacher and the teacher loved her, the mother, who had a great deal of respect for the teacher as well, insisted that the child be removed from the school post haste. The mother was given her choice of schools to choose from and the mother made the decision on where the student will go to school.

But it didn't end there. The mother then went to a extreme fringe group our sources tell us, could it be the Nation of Islam? Well whatever group it was, that group got in touch with another extreme group. The guys at The Blaze. Yep, Glenn Beck. Yes, the Glen Beck who has made such caring quotes about minorities as found here and here.

What happened? The student and her parents appeared on the Glen Beck Show. Since when does Glen Beck care about the people of the inner city? Since when does Glen Beck care about the people of color in this country? Glen Beck is an opportunist. Glen Beck, even when he is on his meds, is meshuga.

The family is being used. First by the NOI, next by Glen Beck, and now by Campbell Brown.

The teacher involved loves her job, loves her students, and this is the price that she must pay, for something that is just miscommunication?

Where is the verification of this incident having happened the way it was reported? If this truly happened the way it was reported why then is the teacher still teaching? Where are other stories of this teacher acting in the same manner? Were students in the class interviewed as part of the investigation? Were other teachers?

This incident is still under investigation and we don't know the entire story. Yet, Campbell Brown has no problem deciding what the truth is. Campbell Brown has no trouble using people to advance herself.

Think about it. Read the story in again. Read this. Make your own decision.

This lawsuit is about power, control, and money. Nothing more, nothing less.