Mutual Benefits

Every day I get email about the ATRs. And every day I have more questions about Tim Daly and his merry New Teacher Project. According to Mr. Daly, the UFT's criticism of his figures is all wrong, primarily because it included guidance counselors. The NTP never said to put guidance counselors on unpaid leave, only teachers. Evidently, paying teachers to be in ATR is a huge financial drain, but paying guidance counselors to do the same is a different animal entirely.

I've written before about Mr. Daly's questionable use of statistics. Actually, though, it's remarkable that none of the tabloids mention word one about his millions of dollars in DoE contracts. Even more remarkably, no one notices that his organization actually trains many of the people who are bouncing veteran teachers out of their jobs.

The biggest irony, though, is that Mr. Daly can write a report, entitle it "Mutual Benefits," offer no benefits whatsoever to working people, and have virtually no one question his integrity.

If that's indeed the case, consider me the first.

They Think We're Idiots

They do.

Michael Bloomberg and Joel Klein were able to get massive givebacks frpm us for less than cost of living. So it's not much of a surprise when New Teacher Project head Tim Daly writes a paper about "Mutual Benefits" and tells teachers, "We won't fire you. We'll just put you on unpaid leave."

In other words, teachers could have had no salary or benefits, but now they'll just have no salary or benefits. Despite Mr. Daly's incredible good will, even folks who adored the 2005 contract aren't buying that.

Nevertheless, thank goodness we have Tim Daly to offer us "mutual benefits." Mr. Daly also suggests that leaving veteran teachers up the creek without a paddle will put them in line with other American industries.

In case you haven't heard, people are losing their jobs and homes and living hand to mouth all over the country. And though Bill O'Reilly won't tell you this while he's "looking out for you," there's no better protection for working people than unions. Their demise has not helped most Americans.

Here's what Americans need---they need to get in line with us.

As for Chancellor Klein, in the preposterous thrall of trying to break a contract he himself created, the solution to the ATR problem is simple. Since you're paying these salaries anyway, offer to continue doing so. Let principals have them for free.

They'll all be working tomorrow.

Problem solved (if that's what you want).

Mayor Mike's Kinfolk Issue a Report

After reading widespread claims about Mayor Bloomberg's 81 million dollar bill for ATR teachers, it's nice to see that the UFT is finally speaking up. I only hope someone is listening.

The New Teacher Project, a completely objective organization (which just happens to have a bunch of DoE contracts) released a "fair and balanced" report calling for amendments to the UFT contract. Apparently, those goshdarn lazy ATR teachers don't want to look for jobs at all.

But the UFT says 194 of the 665 ATR teachers are actually working regular schedules full time. Not only that, but with the central system paying their salaries, principals have no incentive whatsoever to put them on payroll. Why not have a free teacher in perpetuity and buy that all-important plasma TV for the principal's office? Why not invest in daily donut deliveries to freshen up the place?

And while you're at it, why not let the mayor and his "fair and balanced" NTP quadruple the supposed cost of this enterprise? The UFT estimates it costs substantially less than the city claims.

The president of the New Teacher Project, Timothy Daly, said he knew of no way to collect data on precisely what ATR members are doing inside schools.

"Why didn't I hear about this before now if this is a widespread problem?" Mr. Daly said.

Interesting that Mr. Daly, despite having no knowledge of what ATR members did within schools, had no problem issuing reports and coming to conclusions about them. And Mr. Daly's conclusions are interesting indeed:

As we have seen in New York already, only a very small percentage of the entire teaching force (235 teachers out of approximately 79,000, or only about 0.3 percent) was unable to find a mutual consent position after a full year in the reserve pool.

Note that the "fair and balanced" approach of Mr. Daly's group is not to actually use the percentage of teachers in the reserve pool, but to compare it to the number of working teachers in New York City, the overwhelming majority of whom have never even been in the reserve pool. You know the old line about "liars, damned liars, and statisticians?"

Another example of Mr. Daly's approach to statistics can be found over at Eduwonkette's comment form.

38 percent of the most senior group of excessed teachers found a new position compared to 35 percent of the most novice.

Note that when Mr. Daly refers to "excessed teachers," he makes no distinction between new teachers excessed for declining enrollment in their subjects, and veteran teachers stuck in schools that got closed. That right there is misleading, as a one-year English teacher might easily go from school A to school B with little problem. It's different for the vet, who's gonna cost principal B over double what one-year teacher gets. And Mr. Daly acknowledges, somewhat, that new teachers are less likely to find themselves in the ATR pool:

...the most novice teachers were more than twice as likely to be reabsorbed by their former schools as the most senior teachers (44 percent compared to 18 percent).

Here, the statistics become even more questionable. There are simply more novice teachers than senior teachers these days. So if 38% of them found jobs, while 35% of novices found jobs, it's entirely possible that many more novices found jobs than senior teachers did. We don't know, of course, because in Mr. Daly's "fair and balanced" report, that info is unavailable to us.

Is there anyone naive enough to believe that if Mr. Daly's group came to different conclusions they'd still be riding the DoE gravy train?

Today in Edwize

Ron Isaac, aka redhog, aka Irakundji, aka Harold Spinner, wrote a post today that I agree with 100%. It's unfortunate that Bloomberg and Klein want to play the ATR issue the way they're doing.

It's even more unfortunate that the UFT allowed them to do it. The way to address potential problems like this is with crystal-clear contractual agreements, not by allowing entirely predictable scenarios and then crying, "It's just not fair!"

And when the contract that enabled this situation came out, Mr. Isaac adored it unequivocally.

The UFT Responds

Over at Edwize, UFT President Randi Weingarten's internet mouthpiece is shocked, SHOCKED!, at the entirely predictable PR storm the Tweedies have kicked up over the Absent Teacher Reserves, or ATRs. It's true, of course, that the Tweedies are getting a lot of mileage complaining about these teachers. Also, most of the claims in the article appear entirely verifiable.

However, the biggest difference between Mr. Klein and Ms. Weingarten is that Mr. Klein has a long-term vision of what he wants to do with the city school system. Obfuscate and delay on class size, decent facilities, and overcrowding, but full speed ahead with charter schools (With 75% of high schools overcrowded, there's always room for charter schools), privatization, no-bid contracts, and illegal anti-labor antics in the name of saving children. Who cares if we signed a contract? Who cares if we wrote the clause we're now protesting? We're SAVING THE CHILDREN, FOR GOD'S SAKE!

In any case, the United Federation of Teachers, after having endorsed mayoral control, agreed to a 3rd reorganization in which principals have to count teacher salaries as part of building budgets. And they are stunned, apparently, when principals overwhelmingly choose new teachers for less than half the price. The only surprise I see here is that they fail to recognize their own monumental lack of foresight.

The article is interesting in that it offers a laundry list of all the things Tweed won't do. They won't talk to us. They won't negotiate with us. They won't do this, they won't do that.

Well, of course they won't. But the UFT happens to be a signatory to the very document that displaced all these people. The writer protests:

When the Department of Education entered into the staffing choice system in the 2005 contract — which gave teachers the power to choose their school and school principals the power to choose their teachers — the UFT negotiation team clearly stated that such a system would result in a pool of unassigned teachers. The DoE agreed this would happen, but said it was prepared to bear that price.

That sounds like a pretty rough situation. It clearly indicates, though, that the UFT had no problem accepting a pool of unassigned teachers. This is something the very same writer chose to conspicuously ignore when writing in praise of the "Open Market System" that's left so many senior teachers out in the cold.

This situation, again, was entirely predictable. The DoE's unwillingness to negotiate is nothing new. The UFT aristocracy's policy of giving away the sun and the moon, then feigning shock when the city asks for the stars, is simply preposterous. Its response to Tweed's well-oiled PR machine (and why on earth haven't we got one?), despite having pimped the 2005 contract like the best thing since sliced bread, is typically ineffectual.

The most frightening thing about the clueless UFT leadership, though, is its chronic inability to see fault in itself. It staunchly refuses to learn anything, an odd position for a union of teachers.

Indeed, after months of proclaiming that they were concerned with attracting experienced, accomplished teachers to schools in poor communities with the greatest educational challenges, the DoE is now pursuing a policy which would ensure precisely the opposite.

Of course, if you had not agreed to mayoral control, this might not be the case. Perhaps if you had not agreed to support a reorganization that made principals consider salary, that might not be the case. And certainly, if we had not given away every single professional improvement we'd gained with zero percent salary increases (each one fully supported by the UFT leadership), that would not be the case.

What experienced teacher would take the risk of going to a school which might well be closed down, knowing that if they were unable to find another assignment the DoE would have the power to fire them.

And why would they need to worry about it if the UFT had not dumped the UFT transfer plan? Why would they need to worry about it if the UFT had not scuttled seniority privileges for less than cost of living?

It all comes down to the vision thing. Bloomberg has it.

Ms. Weingarten and her merry band of patronage employees do not.

Thanks to Schoolgal

Who Knows What Evil Lurks in the Hearts of Men?

Well, not just Lamont Cranston. Every ATR teacher knows what the Chancellor wants them to do (jump off a cliff), and the DoE is making noise about them yet again. If the Tweedies are to be believed, it's cost 81 million bucks to prop up their substitute teacher brigade. Now this was entirely predictable, and I've no doubt whatsoever that many (myself included) predicted it repeatedly.

Mr. Klein instituted this system along with UFT President Randi Weingarten, and made the additional decision to hire new teachers before he placed the displaced. To further ensure experienced teachers would never find employment, he instituted yet another reorganization in which he required principals to take salaries out of their budgets.

Now, of course, both Mr. Klein and Ms. Weingarten are shocked, SHOCKED!, to discover that principals choose to hire 45K newbies rather than 100K vets. Naturally, Mr. Klein wishes to renounce the contract he wrote and signed. After all, this is an emergency!

"We've got some teachers on our hands that are costing our city a lot of money [while not teaching]," Daly said. "This is not a sustainable system. ... It has to change."

Well, then, Mr. Daly, I've got a simple solution--why the hell don't you put these teachers to work? Why don't you reduce class sizes? Why don't you devote every single teacher to the task of teaching the children you very publicly claim to put first?

I'll tell you why--you'd lose a valuable scapegoat, and would have fewer targets at which to point your various fingers. You couldn't risk that, as "accountability" must be restricted to unionized workers, and must never, ever approach Tweed.

While we're on the subject of hypocrisy, note that the Tweedies, who purport to worry about fairness, adhere very strictly to the letter of agreements that lose money for others, like bus companies. They're feeling the pinch of huge rises in gas prices, and want to cut down on field trips. Oh, no, they say. Since they make no dent in our budget, why worry about yours?

Instead, the "Children First" crowd are cutting down the costs of school lunches, making them even worse, if such a thing is humanly possible.

I shudder to imagine the possibilities.

Thanks to Schoolgal

They Should Be Shocked. Shocked!

It's funny to read in the UFT paper that they've filed a discrimination suit against the city. Apparently, the Absent Teacher Reserve is largely composed of senior teachers. Amazingly, principals, who now have to pay salaries out of their own school budgets, prefer to hire newer teachers for half the price.

Clearly no one in the UFT anticipated this when they agreed to Klein's third reorganization. This was the reorganization that made principals pay salary lines out of their own budgets. UFT bigshots are shocked that principals snap up newbies at half the price while senior teachers are left to rot in the ATR brigade.

Naturally I'm shocked too. While I and many others repeatedly predicted this would happen, Edwize writers insisted this was the best of all possible worlds and that everything was beautiful. In fact, they praised the "hold harmless" clause, assuming that principals would opt to hire senior teachers rather than grabbing two for the price of one.

Apparently, what with their utter lack of vision and all, UFT bigshots underestimated the bargain-hunting abilities of administrators. Perhaps they simply hadn't noticed that the city has been paying the lowest wage in the area for over thirty years. Or perhaps they did, but attributed it to coincidence. Or maybe they believed Ms. Weingarten's repeated lies about our having caught up to the suburbs.

In any case, in retrospect, perhaps it was indeed an error to agree to this ATR thing. Senior teachers used to be guaranteed placement, and now they're just another financial liability for principals to worry about. Perhaps it wasn't a good idea to have placed them in this demoralizing position without even getting a cost of living increase in return. But what with the UFT's complete lack of vision, I suppose that's too much to ask.

And even with the administration's newfound right to condemn teachers to the purgatory of ATR, the city is still short of qualified science, art, and foreign language teachers. And there are many qualified teachers rotting in the ATR brigade. I know some of them.

But due to the devil's bargain between Ms. Weingarten and Mr. Klein, NYC kids still learn Spanish from gym teachers and science from social studies teachers. The rate is now 9% overall, though it runs up to 25 if you want to study earth science.

In nearby suburban schools, with unions, without merit pay, and without "reforms," the figure hovers around zero--as it has for as long as I've been following education. What can Mr. Klein and Ms. Weingarten learn from this? And is there any evidence to suggest either bothers to learn anything? Or that they have any incentive to do so?

Let me know if you can come up with any answers.

UFT Brass Springs to Action

Not wasting a minute, they're on the case. After printing pages and pages of propaganda on Edwize about why it was better for working teachers to have fewer transfer privileges, and why it was best that principals alone decide where teachers can work, after giving away everything but the kitchen sink for less than cost of living, the UFT leadership has come to the defense of an ailing Brooklyn teacher who needs to work closer to home on Staten Island.

Though the teacher, David Irons, requested a medical transfer, the best the good ol' DoE would do was offer him a permanent substitute position. Mr. Irons' misfortunes would certainly not have occurred if Randi Weingarten and her minions had not been so willing to trust in the good graces of Tweed and its Leadership Academy principal corps.

It's pathetic that an experienced working teacher needs a crippling disease to qualify for a transfer. If Ms. Weingarten had half the foresight and vision of the folks on the other side of the bargaining table, we'd never have left this poor teacher in this miserable situation. We'd never have left teachers whose schools had closed as ATRs either.

The patronage employees at Edwize regularly congratulate themselves on the program that's enabled easy transfers for low-paid new teachers. While that may be a good thing, they regularly ignore the plight of ATRs dumped into this pool through no fault of their own. The UFT aristocracy is responsible for all this, and for the very real problems of Mr. Irons as well.

Ms. Weingarten can make a principled argument that Mr. Irons deserves placement, but he wouldn't be in this predicament if it were not for her monumental indifference to the needs of working teachers. Rod Paige's admiration notwithstanding, Ms. Weingarten is plainly incompetent, frets only over the maintenance of her 40-million per annum patronage mill, and merits impeachment, not promotion.

Without a Paddle

Unity-New Action types are all aglow with a resolution they've made in the executive board proposing that ATR teachers be placed before new teachers are hired. However, without specific contractual amendments, it's just as meaningless as their declaration about solving the class size problem.

Monopolistic, amoral, self-serving Unity-New Action can make all the resolutions it likes. Perhaps it's learned from Mayor Bloomberg that image can yield more political capital than substance. The fact is, however, that its patronage machine enabled the ATR problem by approving it, and recently worsened it by supporting Klein's Mach III re-org. They took an enormous step backward with this, and the result was entirely predictable.

Were it not for the extreme apathy of most city teachers (over 75% of whom didn't even bother to vote in union elections), and the patronage mill that enables the Unity-New Action machine to suck up our dues money (not to mention permitting them blatantly unethical major television campaigns before every election), informed voices would be crying out for the impeachment of Randi Weingarten, along with her entire Unity-New Action gang of double-pensioned sycophants.

The 2005 contract was an abomination of unprecedented givebacks for a compensation increase that failed even to meet cost of living. It was relentlessly promoted by union leadership with threats and lies worthy of Karl Rove. On Edwize, they even changed the names of Unity faithful to give us the impression they were voices "from the trenches." Ms. Weingarten's "progressive" leadership earns us ATR status and the admiration of blatant anti-unionists like Rod Paige. There is no question we could have done better.

We could hardly have done worse.

The Naked Truth

UFT Vice President Richard Farkas, on page 6 of the May 10th, 2007 edition of NY Teacher, wrote a thoughtful article about the plight of ATR teachers in NYC. Apparently, the Daily News bemoaned the fact that hundreds of teachers were working as substitutes, but receiving much higher pay than regular subs.

As of now, there is no working link to the article at the NY Teacher website.

Mr. Farkas explains that many of these teachers are tossed into the ATR pool through no fault of their own. When Mr. Bloomberg closes a school, they're left to their own devices, and cannot get a job without a principal's say-so. Though they try, it's no dice for many of these folks.

Now the UFT does provide job security for these folks, at least until contracts are renegotiated. That's a good thing.

Of course, it would be a far better thing if the UFT had not given up the UFT transfer plan, or seniority transfers. The UFT categorizes it as an urban myth that the new "free market" plan is not an improvement over the UFT plan, the one I used. They come to this conclusion because more people transferred under the new plan. Typically, they're unwilling to respond to a single question about how many teachers were refused positions.

However, hundreds of ATR teachers are stuck in limbo. The ones who've contacted me were understandably less than enthusiastic about the new free market plan.

Under the old system, there would be not hundreds, but precisely zero ATR teachers. And anytime the Daily News, or even the DoE, wants to do something about this, they can insist that new classes be created, old ones be reduced, and all those ATR teachers get back to work.

Unless they're just looking for something to complain about, of course.

Thanks to Schoolgal

Fair's Fair

Mayor Bloomberg's plans include equitable funding--every kid in NYC will get X dollars and no more. The X is significant, because veteran teachers used to draw more money to schools. No more of that.

Now, it appears they'll draw the same amount of money, but principals will have to pay them twice as much. If I'm wrong about this, I'd love to be corrected, so feel free if you know something I don't. But if this is correct, guess who's joining the big ATR party?

Meanwhile, principals say it's hard to get rid of bad teachers. That's not exactly news, though.

"If you give a teacher a U, it's hard to get them out of your school," said one Manhattan middle-school principal.

"So you offer them a satisfactory rating if they'll leave. It happens all the time."

Why is it happening now that principals no longer need to accept transfers? Is it our fault if they choose to lie to one another?

I don't have a problem with denying tenure to incompetent teachers. I don't have a problem with declining to hire them in the first place.

But neither I nor the UFT has any say whatsoever in who gets hired or who gets tenure. It's odd how that fact is never, ever mentioned by a city reporter or columnist.

Thanks to Schoolgal

Successful Small Schools

They're rough to maintain, and tough to start. But Mayor Bloomberg is determined to ensure their success.

To that end, he's excluding kids who don't speak English. Mayor Bloomberg has consulted with educational experts, who have determined that non-English speakers tend not to do so well on standardized tests, particularly when said tests are in English.

So I guess it's the ATR corps for me when they come to dismantle my school.

Yes, Virginia...

...there is a Santa Claus (but there's no teacher shortage). Of course there's a Santa--how else do you explain the opportunity to take a six-week paid program that allows you to start working almost immediately as a New York City teacher?

You get all the benefits of a union--salary, health, dental, due process--you even get to come in August to listen to all the speeches and notifications that preclude the extended Labor Day weekend teachers used to have. Nor only that, but if your school gets reorganized, you join the Absent Teacher Reserve and get to sub for full-time pay. But wait--what's this?

Dear Virginia,

If you don't find yourself a job by next Friday, you're fired. Also, we're kicking you out of your college program.

Have a nice day.

Love,

Santa

Well, that can't be good. It's odd, because even as they send such notes, New York City is running costly ads soliciting new teachers. I recently clicked an ad on the NY Times site that brought me here, offering me, among other things, a chance to join the very program Virginia's being kicked out of.

Is it wise to solicit candidates for a costly program, and then dump them like so much trash? And why, if there's no shortage, are we running these ads?

Well, it's all about your criteria. According to Mayor Mike and Uncle Joel, if we find one single candidate for each job, we don't have a shortage. Also, it doesn't make any difference which teachers we get rid of, as long as they don't stay around for those costly pensions.

Good teachers are good, because they help us to show we're doing a good job. And bad teachers are good too, because we can blame everything that goes wrong on them.

Don't even bother mentioning those schools in nearby Nassau County, where they get hundreds of applications for each opening, ensuring kids there get very good teachers. That's not cost-effective. So what if we lose good teachers? We can replace them with other good teachers. Or we can replace them with bad ones.

In New York City, it makes no difference whatsoever. It's made no difference for thirty years.

And that's why Mayor Michael Bloomberg, despite all the hoopla, will make no difference either.

This Jar of Money Can Be Yours (Just Sign Here)

Each day I learn our contract is more complicated than I thought.

Readers of this blog know that Chancellor Klein hires hundreds of new teachers even as he relegates working teachers to the "Absent Teacher Reserve." Under the proposed new contract, he'll be able to offer them a severance package, even though none of them, to my knowledge, have been established as bad teachers.

But here's something you won't read in NY Teacher---those teachers who are part of the city's Teaching Fellows program are not receiving this offer. They're being threatened with termination, and expulsion from college coursework. As I can't provide a link, I'll share the letter one of the Fellows received:

Dear .....,

According to our records, at this time you are still in the Teacher Reserve without a regular, full-time assignment. I am writing to remind you that as per the Fellow Commitment Form that you signed, if you do not find a regular school-level teaching position outside of the Teacher Reserve by December 1 you will no longer remain in the Teaching Fellows program. As a result, you will no longer be licensed and you will be terminated from employment for failure to meet qualifications. Furthermore, you will not be able to continue university coursework after that date.

At this time, you should continue to seek a school-level teaching position. While our preference is for you to remain in your assigned region, you are permitted to seek interview opportunities and obtain a position anywhere in the city. The Placement Support office remains available to assist you with interviewing tips and can provide you feedback through a mock interview. If you would like assistance please contact Placement Support at 718.935.4586.

We must be in receipt of a signed School Commitment Form by 5:00 p.m. on December 1 in order for you to remain in the Fellowship and on payroll. If you have already secured a position, please fax the signed School Commitment Form as soon as possible to 718.935.4185.

I hope you will be successful in securing a position so that you can remain in the Fellowship.

Sincerely,

Vicki Bernstein

Director of Alternative Certification

According to my source, the Fellows program guarantees its participants teaching positions if they complete the summer program. This is not the first time Klein's DoE has attempted to weasel out of a contract by simply ignoring its provisions. Can anyone help these teachers?

Can the Unity wonks still stand up and claim the new ATR program is better than the old UFT transfer plan?

ATRs and Health

I'm hearing that ATR teachers who have not been able to find a job within one year will be offered a "voluntary" severance package under Unity's new contract. Consequences for declining the "offer" are not specified. If the UFT and the City do not agree on a number, the amount of severance pay will go to arbitration.

Health benefits are up for future negotiation under this agreement. We will not have a vote on any such changes. Think 1.5% of your salary for health costs and adjust the "raise" accordingly, if Mayor Mike has his druthers.

We will have no say whatsoever if we vote yes.

Consider mayoral control and ask yourself whether Randi has agreed to support its renewal in '09. What other motivation would the mayor have to settle with her?

Would You Believe...

...a schoolteacher caught scrawling racist grafitti in a school bathroom?

While Mike "Accountablity" Bloomberg squanders time and money demoralizing every New York City teacher via sanctimonious and ineffectual educational mandates, how many other beauties like this one have made it through the city's standard-free intergalactic recruiting process?

Perish forbid one of the thousand teachers in ATR purgatory should take her place.

One ATR Left Behind

Maryanne at This is Too a Blog is an ATR no more.

Zip on over and congratulate her.

One down, 999 to go.

Randi and Joel Have a New Fan

I was just referred (by an ATR teacher) to an interesting article from NYC Indymedia:

Newly, vastly empowered principals have succeeded in inculcating a climate of fear within the schools that proscribes whistle-blowing, grievance filing, and collective action. Nothing demonstrates this more than the Chancellor’s recent remarks that 1500 recently excessed teachers (an increase of 500% from last year) are “potentially undesirable veteran[s]” (The New York Times, 9/2/06).

UFT President Randi Weingarten should be as much an object of teachers’ scorn as Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein. During negotiations for the 2003-2007 contract Ms. Weingarten sacrificed a well-oiled system of teacher transfer in which excessed teachers were guaranteed placement within their region for a so-called “open market” system wherein excessed teachers pound the pavement–citywide–in the oft-vain attempt at securing employment.

Meanwhile, over at Edwize, Leo Casey and City Sue, who've both signed loyalty oaths to the Unity patronage mill, swear it's the greatest thing since sliced bread. Apparently, more teachers have transferred under this plan, and that's more important than ther thousand-plus displaced teachers wandering around as subs.

Typically, Leo and Sue haven't anticipated what Chancellor Klein will be saying about these teachers come contract negotiation time, and fail to appreciate the ramifications of the chancellor hiring hundreds of new teachers even as they wander about in limbo.

Here's what the latest issue of NY Teacher has to say about ATR teachers (Correction--Schoolgal points to a letter that mentions them). Doubtless they think those teachers should be grateful for the right to to pay Leo and Sue's six-figure salaries. Personally, I wouldn't begrudge them these salaries, or higher ones, if they negotiated decent contracts. While it's simpler to turn the whole thing over to PERB and let them do whatever the hell they feel like, that's not what we pay them for.

FastPass

Chancellor Klein is fond of adapting business models to suit education. For example, he's a large proponent of merit pay, as long as he doesn't need to pay a competitive wage beforehand. The chancellor believes great teachers will jump at the chance to (maybe) make money, as opposed to approaching nearby districts that pay well to begin with.

But why not, just to show what a regular guy you are, give current teachers a crack at getting their jobs back? After all, there are openings. Sure you can get two new teachers for the price of one vet, but why not give them a small window and have some fun while you're at it?

At Six Flags Great America in Illinois, if you eat a live cockroach you can bypass all the attraction lines. Perhaps the Chancellor can offer the 1,000 blackballed ATR teachers a similar opportunity. Eat a live cockroach and get your job back, before we offer it to someone off the street. This way, he could clean up the schools even as he provides experienced teachers for NYC's 1.1 million students.

While a thousand teachers sit in limbo, Klein's hired at least 275 new teachers, and he's looking for more. Klein says he won't force these teachers on anyone, and implies they're a drag on the system. What principal in his right mind wants to hire them after Klein sends out messages like that? The chancellor is clearly moving toward a showdown with clueless UFT leadership in 07.

Let's give Unity a fastpass to oblivion, rather than yet another opportunity to sell us out.

Damn Right She Works for Me

There are two kinds of people--those who do what it takes to please Mayor Mike, and those who need to be fired.

Congratulations to Rashid Davis, who's willing to go the extra mile for the kids of New York City. Assistant Chancellor Alonso contends that if kids don't pass, it's the fault of the teachers. Davis has taken that philosophy to heart. When he worked at John F. Kennedy High School as an assistant principal, he couldn't bear to see kids fail the crucial English Regents exam. That's why he went back and changed their grades.

Clearly, if teachers were willing to make such sacrifices, all kids could pass. Naturally, if that were to happen, it would prove once and for all that mayoral control is an unqualified success. Whether or not the kids are qualified is of no importance whatsoever.

So while a thousand teachers wander around as full-time subs through no fault of their own, Davis got a promotion, even as the chancellor's office still investigates whether or not his changes were justified.

But Davis' heart was in precisely the right place--Mayor Mike's pocket.

Meanwhile, JFK's UFT Chapter Chairperson, Maria Colon, sits in the rubber room for an unforgivable offense--reporting Davis on a Department of Education fax machine.