Last night’s Rochester school board meeting started with a celebration of the accomplishments of a stellar group of young female students, followed by accolades for schools that were on the state’s list of low-performing schools, but are now showing solid academic achievement. The third floor conference room at the district’s central office was nearly filled to capacity with proud family members and onlookers.
But the mood quickly changed from festivity to anger over the district’s new contract with its teachers, and the meeting was shut down by protesters at around 9 p.m. Board members approved the contract in a 5 to 2 vote.
Board members Cynthia Elliott and Mary Adams voted against the contract, but not before about a dozen students, parents, and community activists spoke passionately against a controversial clause in the new agreement.
The clause relates to school safety, student discipline, and personal injury benefits for teachers. It reads, “Crimes committed in schools will be pursued as crimes committed elsewhere, to the extent the District has the right to press charges for those crimes. In all other events, the District will fully support the teacher who chooses to press charges on his/her behalf.”
Many of the parents and students characterized the language as precisely the kind of wording that represents fear and intolerance of black and brown students. And it encourages teachers to view and treat minority children differently than their white peers when they misbehave, they said.
Others spoke of the time and resources that have been invested in a new code of conduct policy, currently in progress, that some people say will help to change disciplinary steps and redirect them from punitive measures toward more restorative justice practices. The new teachers’ contract, they said, turns the work on the new policy on its head.
Melanie Funchess, a mother of two children in the district, said that the board has supported the code of conduct overhaul, so the language in the contract “is a slap and an affront.”
Another parent said that she’s afraid that her 8-year-old child could end up in the criminal justice system for something as minor as running down a school hallway.
Some board members tried to explain their votes, while board vice president Cynthia Elliott lashed out at teachers at union leaders.
“They have this passion for teachers, not for children,” she said. “They have been selfish bullies and liars.” She said that the district’s children are treated like criminals.
“You can’t teach them if you fear them,” Elliott said. And she urged teachers who felt this way to leave the district.
Board member Mary Adams read from a prepared statement, which reads in part:
“One must consider why RTA leaders would choose to launch that missile at our community when the contract offers many other significant elements: financial and other benefits to teachers; provisions that strongly support meaningful, potentially transformative changes in student supports; and teacher leadership in the pursuit of alternative educational settings. An emphasis on those provisions would have symbolized not a missile, but rather an extended hand to our community and would correctly identify those provisions as actually effective contributors to improving teaching conditions, including personal safety.
“The added contract language, and media emphasis on crime in schools, has caused me to conclude this is about something other than teacher safety. I know that employees already can and do file criminal charges based on incidents in schools, some of which, in the judgment of the courts, are reasonable and some not. I want to be clear that when I insist on confronting and addressing the ongoing reality of pervasive racism and criminalization of youth of color throughout this city and country, this is not an invitation for a dog-whistle phrase about condoning abuse or violence in schools.”
School board President Van White said that he is disturbed by the clause in the contract that says school officials will fully support the teacher.
“What does that mean?” he said. The language is vague, he said, and school officials can already be required to provide things such as a recording of an incident.
He also said that a memorandum of understanding between the district and the union has been signed that says that the new contract can be modified to clarify the language.
And White ordered Interim Superintendent Linda Cimusz to have the new code of conduct policy ready for board review by May 1. But that may not be enough to fend off criticism that some board members cater to the unions.
Numerous questions about the contract remain: Why didn’t board members know about the controversial language in the contract until they heard about it from media reports? And how could contract negotiators not realize how that language would be received? The anger it would elicit was predictable.
Toward the end of the meeting, one young man rushed the board members, shouted obscenities, and then made his way up behind the dais. The outburst shocked and frightened some people, and sent some board members scrambling.
Ironically, it may have unintentionally underscored why the controversial language is in the contract. It also illustrated what usually happens when a disruption occurs in a school setting: instruction is interrupted and people feel uncomfortable – not the ideal environment for learning.
Worse, the events last night and the discussion around the contract seemed to minimize the hard-won achievements of the many students, teachers, and families whose success was deservedly praised earlier in the meeting.
And it was another reminder that if we don’t learn how to replicate the successes in city schools – even when students, teachers, and parents tell us what’s working – we’re doomed to repeat the failures.
This article appears in Mar 23-29, 2016.
What’s very disturbing is what Cynthia Elliot, RCSD school board vice president said at the board meeting:
“You can’t teach who you fear and the fact is that if you fear them, don’t be in this district….go to a district in the suburbs where it’s quieter, where there’s not urban children.”
Translation: If you want to work in the RCSD, you must accept the violent student behaviors of some students in the city school district, or else teach somewhere else.
What message does that send to city students from the VP of the school board?
I think it says that it’s ok for students to act out, because the school board VP encourages teachers to accept the student’s behavior or leave.
Is there any wonder why families and teachers are leaving the RSCD? Is there any wonder why students in the RCSD do not get an education, with leadership and idealogy, as demonstrated by the words of the school board vice president??
“Another parent said that she’s afraid that her 8-year-old child could end up in the criminal justice system for something as minor as running down a school hallway. “
What???? Someone so (maybe intentionally?) misinterprets this proposed policy that they think an 8-year-old running down a hallway would be criminally prosecuted if it happened outside of a school setting?
This protest group has no understanding of how the legal system works. In New York if you are younger than seven you cannot be form the intent to commit a crime, and any laws being broken between ages seven and sixteen are permanently sealed when you become eighteen. So right off the bat there are laws in place to protect children from harsh sentencing.
Moreover all the school policy says the law will be enforced. It says nothing about letting white kids off the hook and arresting black kids for doing nothing. That is ridiculous, unfounded and needlessly divisive.
Rochester has an abysmal crime rate. One we need to take seriously especially when children may be involved. Allowing criminal activity to persist on school grounds is not going to do anything to help in that respect.
I actually saw the group’s event posted on facebook and commented these concerns. Rather than addressing the issues they believed the best thing to do was to remove my comment so they could get more people worked up. They didn’t want to talk they just wanted to fight.
Maybe the legal system has no understanding of everything teachers are trying to accomplish with students.
The behavior of the school board member and the random disruptive guy mirrors what is happening in our schools and even in our world. Anger, rage, and sadness was prevalent at this meeting just as it is in the RCSD. Hope prevails when we start to really listen to each other and create the space for everyone to be able to safely express their feelings, and allow them to exist. Where do we need to start? I am not sure, but I know every day as a RCSD teacher and parent, I listen and try to teach my students and children how to listen to each other. I also allow them to feel it all. I am choosing hope and will hold and carry the good, because even though there is a lot of darkness, there is more light. You just have to look harder.
Rochester Musician, stuff like this:
“Another parent said that she’s afraid that her 8-year-old child could end up in the criminal justice system for something as minor as running down a school hallway. “
Is what idiot parents in the RCSD think is reality. Sad, isn’t it?
Has there ever been an incident where a 8 year old child has been criminally charged for running down the hall?
Based on this 2011 document from the CT Juvenile Court Support Services, it was necessary to explicitly list “running in the hallway” as a reason to NOT escalate a situation to involve the court system. That they explicitly mention this suggests there might be some past history there? See pg 8 of the linked document
http://www.njjn.org/uploads/digital-librar…
With board members like Cynthia Elliott stoking the fires of racism, it will never get better. It’s disturbing how she can so blatantly paint “white, female, suburban teachers” as biased against Black and Latino students and get away with it. If I, as a white male, said such things about Blacks and Latinos, I’d be branded as racist. Ms. Elliott, your comments are racist and you need to go!
Cynthia Elliott echoes the sentiment of many African Americans nationwide. Finally someone is addressing the elephant in the room that America’s educational history supports. Mainstream America has never educated minority America. Need I mention an example the Aleut Native American children in Alaska. I must also quote Malcolm X “Only a fool would let his enemy teach his children.” Racism in America is on the rise and is very much in her educational system. We are now back to the 1950’s.
Brown v. Board of Education was not to overturn Plessy v. Ferguson. It was to enforce the second half, “equal.” Since the Court saw no equality as it had order, in anger it ruled for integration. Making schools equal meant taking away some funding from the all white schools and spending it in all Black schools. That was not going to happen. Thus integration was ordered. It was not sought by the filing.
I wrote to NBC in the late 1990’s on this issue. They came through with three news stories addressing this issue. The first two were on two all Black schools, in all Black neighborhoods with all Black educators. The success was evident. The second featured an African American teacher in a small one room. She had come out of retirement because, she did not like what she saw. She had control of the classroom. You could hear the pin leave the hand before it dropped on the floor. The third was the most telling. It was still and all Black school within an all Black neighborhood. What had changed due to Brown v. Board of Education was the integration of faculty. The Black educators had been sent to all white schools and later fired. White educators had been brought into reach integration of the faculty. Prior to the implementation of Brown v the Board of Education the school had over an 80% graduation rate. Post the implementation it was a failing school.
Our children are now in uniforms where as a people we think independently and creatively. It is part of our culture. It has always been evident in our dress. Uniforms are also worn in prison. Uniforms suggest uniformity of thought. That is anti-education. Our sons are placed in throw away schools. Education is about the children and not about the educators. Education is a positive experience. Racism is negative thus no education possible. Yet its supremacy creates the thought that our children are being done a favor and are privileged by the great sacrifice of others. At the same time their education has plummeted.