Scurrilous fact-free NY Post article about briefings on upcoming CEC elections; please apply to be a CEC candidate yourself!

Yesterday, the NY Post ran a sleazy and fact-free article attacking Shino Tanikawa for a workshop she gave a month ago to inform parents about the upcoming CEC and Citywide Council elections.  Shino is a friend, a long-time parent leader, and currently the well-respected Manhattan representative on the NY State Board of Regents. I refuse to provide a link to the article but it attacked Shino for giving this briefing, because it was co-sponsored by the UFT.

The reporter, Mia Walsh, claimed that the workshop was somehow unfairly biased in favor of pro-UFT positions, even though the two parents quoted in the article who attended the briefing were unable to provide any evidence that would back up this claim:

Two attendees included Deborah Kross, a representative for the Bronx on the Citywide Council on High Schools, and Steve Stowe, president of CEC 20 in Brooklyn....Kross and Stowe found the boot camp to be informative, covering the application process and education law that governs them, but questioned the UFT involvement.

But somehow, they and the NY Post reporter remained suspicious, though they were unable to cite any example of bias: 

"I  think it’s naive to say that the UFT doesn’t have their own interest in all of this,” said Stowe. “That’s something that’s hard to communicate sometimes because the message is that parents have to always support teachers,” he said. 

Parents supporting teachers?  What a radical idea.  

The article also featured a scurrilous personal attack on Shino by Deborah Kross, without bothering to quote any of the hundreds of parents and advocates who admire Shino's principled positions and hard work to improve our schools over many years,  as the former President of CEC2 and as an appointee to many NYC task forces and DOE working groups.

For those who may still harbor suspicions of this briefing, I asked Shino for a copy.  It is posted below.  Please comment if you see any sign of political bias or favoritism to the UFT.  

Parents, please consider running for a position on the Citywide and/or Community Education Councils.  In recent years, a few CECs have been taken over by right-wing zealots, including one CEC which passed a resolution urging the Gov. Hochul to veto the class size bill -- a resolution that was full of factual errors and did not represent the wishes of their constituents, as class size reduction has been the top priority of K12 parents in that same district nearly every year that DOE parent surveys have been given. 

The deadline to nominate yourself to be a candidate is Feb. 15, only ten days away, and the process is simple.  For more information, check out the DOE website here. 

Shino Tanikawa: The deep flaws in the CEC selection process

The below email is from Shino Tanikawa, a member of the Community Education Council in District 2, to Dennis Walcott.  Shino points out the deep flaws in the selection process for Community Education Councils, which ended last week, despite the postponement that resulted from a threatened lawsuit:

From: Shino Tanikawa shinot@verizon.net   

To: Chancellor Walcott DMWalcott@schools.nyc.gov

Cc: Ojeda Hall

Sent: Sun, June 5, 2011 9:39:38 AM

Subject: CEC Election

Dear Chancellor Walcott,

Thank you for the decision to postpone the CEC election.  I appreciate your willingness to work with parents.  Unfortunately, the postponement did not result in any significant improvements.  Many of my concerns before the postponement remained unresolved.  So that you can run a better election next time, I would like to share some of the remaining problems that require resolution and carefully planning.

·      Many parents did not seem to know the advisory voting was repeated and that they had to vote again even if they voted during the first round.

·      The same confusion over how to cast advisory votes remained after the postponement.  Many parents never received the flier with the login information or they did not hold onto it after they cast their first votes, not realizing the advisory voting was being repeated (please note many elementary schools do not use OSIS numbers for communicating with parents).

·      At least two selectors questioned how they were to cast their votes since the advisory vote results did not show how their school's parents voted.  In other words, the advisory vote results were not organized by school.

·      Parent Coordinators and District Family Advocates were not utilized effectively in disseminating important information.

·      Selectors from many schools did not seem to know when the selector voting started or how they were to cast their votes (some selectors mistakenly thought they could cast their vote using the OSIS # and the zip code).

·      I personally know of at least one selector who did NOT have his login information as of Thursday June 2 (he had to call Ms. Hall to get the information), and as of Tuesday May 31, there were a handful of selectors who had not received their login information.

·      Candidates who have multiple school affiliations only had one school listed with their information (please note this is critical information since only one candidate can be elected from any given school).

·      Candidates’ status regarding IEP/ELL was not publicly posted, making advisory vote results impossible to interpret for the selectors (please note that each Council is to have one ELL and one IEP representatives).

·      It is not clear how multiple parents from one school will be treated if one of them has a child in another school.  It makes sense that if two parents from one school are both elected, and if one of the parents has a child at another school, both parents should be allowed to serve.  However the policy on this issue is unclear. 

·      Now the law allows parents who have had a child in a school under the jurisdiction of the District in the past two years to run, how will this affect the single representative per school policy? 

·      The above policy also needs clarity for candidates whose children are in fifth grade at the time of the election.  By the time the term begins on July 1, these candidates will no longer be parents of elementary students.  How is the single representative per school policy applied in this case?

These problems can be solved by improving just three operational areas: better outreach to parents through schools (not CBOs and faith-based organizations); clear and transparent presentation of information and data; and policies that are well thought out and fair. 

As for the current election, I have two simple requests.  Please post the number of parents who voted in the advisory voting, both the first time and the second time, broken down by school.  This should also be useful information to the DOE for planning outreach for the next election.  I would also like to see the number of selectors voting from each school.  After the election of 2009, candidates were given a detailed tally of the selectors' votes, showing which school's selectors voted.  Needless to say, I do not want to see for whom the selectors voted, but I would like to know whether they voted.

I was heartened to hear that you regarded the CEC/Citywide  Councils as an important element of parent engagement.  I hope we can work together to improve not just the election process but how we engage and empower parents to be meaningful partners. 

Sincerely, Shino Tanikawa, member and candidate, CECD2

An open letter about the botched CEC elections from Shino Tanikawa

There have been many problems with this year's process surrounding the election of Community Education Council members, as reported in news accounts  here and here.   The final outrage is the determination of the DOE to keep secret the names of candidates, which is of doubtful legality.

It is also known that there was a big push to recruit charter school parents who might be  more favorably inclined to the administration's policies.  

After sending this letter this morning to Ojeda Hall, head of OFIA,  Shino Tanikawa, Community Education Council member from District 2, received an e-mail reply saying Ms. Hall was going to call her today.  We will report back as to what is said and more importantly, done. 

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Shino Tanikawa
To: Ojeda Hall
Sent: Tue, May 3, 2011 6:57:26 AM
Subject: CEC election

Dear Ojeda,

I attended the CECD2 and CCHS candidates forum last night as a candidate for both Councils.  I would like to register my concern with you.

There was no communication prior to the forum as to what we were expected to do and what the format of the forum was.  The one e-mail I received from the OFIA gave me a link to the web site with information from two years ago (stating the forum format was up to the Presidents' Councils). 

There was no voter's guide for the CCHS.   Some copies of the voter's guide for the CECD2 had pages missing, which meant some candidates' information was missing.

The OFIA staff - all very lovely people whom I enjoyed meeting - were not given proper information as to the mechanics of the election. It looked as though they were thrown into hosting these forums without any training or background documents. 

And, the forum was held the night before the first day of the ELA tests.  Many parents were, I am sure, reluctant to attend an evening meeting (we had a decent turnout - a testament to the dedication of D2 parents).

On a broader level, I must say this whole process has been very poorly conducted.  The State law states the process must begin in January.  The first I heard about the election was late March and I, and many other parents, had to inquire about it before we received any notice.  Because of the late start, everything seems to have been done in haste with carelessness and thoughtlessness abound.

The voter's guide should be available online WITHOUT any login requirement.  We have been told repeatedly that the CEC is a public office and we must follow the Open Meetings Law.  Yet, candidates' information is not available for all to see.  This is simply not acceptable. Furthermore, candidates' school affiliation is not listed, unless the candidate mentions it in her/his statement.  Since there is only one member allowed to serve from any given school, the school affiliation, as well as ELL/IEP status of the child, is important information for the selectors. 

I have heard many accounts of parents trying to reach the OFIA without success.  I, myself, contacted the CEC office of the OFIA requesting that I be the first candidate to present at the CCHS forum so that I can cover the CECD2 on the same evening. I never heard back from anyone (I sent my note to Meg as well as the general CEC election address).  I am not the only one who has received no response. 

Most disturbingly, my colleague, Jaye Bea Smalley, who has been an effective advocate on the CCSE has been left out of the ballot despite the fact she submitted her application on time.  It would be a true travesty if she is not elected because nobody knew she was running again.  This also makes me wonder how many candidates are missing from the ballot. 

I am sure that it is not your intent to botch the CEC election process and your office is doing its best but I see that it does not have the human resources to do the job right.  I am keenly aware of what the Mayor thinks of the parents of traditional schools (as opposed to charters), but I was hoping he would still honor the spirit and the letter of the law by providing you with what you need to do the one thing that really matters to the parents in NYC.

Please let me know if there is anything I can do to improve the situation.

Best,
Shino Tanikawa