I don't have a lot of time right now, but several sources I trust tell me there is already a deal in place for a new APPR plan. They think it will either be a 40% junk science plan, or that it may be a statewide model based on the NYC plan. The NYC plan, while we in NYC don't much like it, is a better one than those in a few upstate cities that were poorly negotiated. It is not nearly as good as those many small locals came up with.
However, a UFT source I also trust tells me that Mulgrew will indeed fight Cuomo's APPR efforts. Hopefully we'll know more after Wednesday's DA. An agreement could actually still be made to make an NYC-style evaluation statewide, which Mulgrew alluded to at the last DA, or 40% statewide junk science. In either of these scenarios, UFT/ NYSUT could argue that Cuomo wanted 50% and we kept it down to 40.
Such an argument will be particularly tough for Revive NYSUT, which ran opposing the evaluation plan and pinned it all on Richard Iannuzzi. I remember the Revive candidates calling it the "Iannuzzi APPR," tapping into the anger all teachers feel about being judged by junk science. If Revive is party to an agreement that endorses not only existing junk science, but also fewer options for teachers statewide, they will have broken yet another core promise, being against APPR.
A problem with UFT leadership is that everything they do is a victory. When we got the UFT transfer plan it was a victory. When we lost it and got Open Market/ ATR instead that was a victory. Getting artifacts for ratings was a victory, and losing them was a victory. Getting the entire Danielson Framework was a victory and cutting it down to 8 domains was a victory.
So Mike Mulgrew can't lose, no matter how miserable UFT and NYSUT teachers become. He is King Midas and everything he punches turns to gold.
I certainly hope none of the above happens. Personally, I think the system is bad enough as is.
Stories herein containing unnamed or invented characters are works of fiction. Names, characters, businesses, places, events and incidents are either the products of the author’s imagination or used in a fictitious manner. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental.