On Sleeping Children

Kids get sleepy in class. It's a fact of life. Sometimes they just say the hell with it and put their heads down. I don't much care for that. First of all, it's not the best of manners. Second, it's not particularly conducive to learning. Finally, I'm abundantly aware that when the principal walks in and said kid appears to be sleeping, it will not be the kid, but rather me who suffers the consequences. I'm okay with suffering the consequences for my own mistakes, but I don't much wish to suffer for the consequences of things I don't do firsthand.

Years ago I used to walk by the desks and kick the bottom, commenting on what a clumsy oof I was for doing so. This usually stunned students into picking up their heads. However, I had one student who regularly reeked of marijuana, and he did not much care for having his afternoon reveries disturbed. This kid went home and told his dad that I regularly hit him in class. An investigation ensued, and my students all reported this did not occur ever. But I recalibrated my approach.

My next step was to walk around the class, saying whatever it was I had to say, but raising my voice to maximum level when I passed a sleeper. This seemed to work, and did not provoke any formal complaints from the kids. But when you're in a trailer adjacent to another, sometimes other teachers take exception. They may be giving a test, and from time to time question the instructional value of incredibly loud screams during said test.

On Christmas, I received a gift of a sonic screwdriver replica. This is a tool that Doctor Who uses for various tasks on the TV show. The replica is a strange-looking object that extends and makes odd and spooky noises. When placed to the ear of a sleeping student it generally causes a reaction involving the raising of the head. However, it isn't long before they figure it does not actually do anything, no matter how many times you assert it analyzes brain waves, read minds, or whatever. But it's pretty funny, and students remain very curious about it as long as you never allow them to actually examine the thing close up.

But sometimes you forget to bring your sonic screwdriver to work. I've noticed that lately, rather than copy notes, some kids will pull out their phones and photograph the board. So once or twice, when kids appeared to be asleep, I took their photographs. Though I did absolutely nothing with the photos, this was not received well. One of my students took particular umbrage, though it was not she I had photographed. But she did not forget.

Sometimes students do not pay attention. On those occasions it may take them a very long time to answer a question. On one such occasion, while waiting for an answer, I decided to feign sleep myself. My student, the one who did not like my taking photos, sprung into action. She took a photo of me in which I appeared to be sleeping, and was thoroughly proud of her achievement.

I said that's not fair, you know I wasn't really sleeping, and that she should delete it. She said fine, but that I'd have to delete mine too. She looked at my phone, and after I deleted one, she checked for more. She made me delete every sleeping photo I'd captured before she would delete hers. I told her it was not fair since I had three and she only had one, but she didn't care. This girl was pursuing justice and would not be satisfied until she had achieved it. In the ongoing battle between student and teacher, she now held all the cards and there was to be absolutely no compromise.

So now I pull out my phone a little more slowly, and kids jump to warn potential victims before I actually get the shot. This seems to work, with the added advantage of allowing the kids to feel they're getting over on me.

But I had to give up altogether on feigning sleep when inattentive students were slow to give answers. That's OK. I have great faith I will come up with something better in time.

Arwen Invites a Conversation About Union Democracy

-->

 by special guest blogger Arwen E.

I received an e-mail from the UFT's Janella Hinds and Sterling Roberson the other day.   

It began:

"Dear Arwen,

Educator-driven unionism!"

It mentioned current contract negotiations next.  (We've waited for this awhile, but I understand fully that negotiating with Bloomberg would have proven very difficult at best given his attitudes towards teachers:  hold their "feet to the fire").

The Hinds-Roberson e-mail continues:

"While we are engaged in this important work, it is our philosophy as vice presidents of academic and career and technical high schools that our union is BY and FOR every member. Only through dialogue, collaboration and action will we be best able to advocate for what is best for our students, schools and profession."

I wish I could agree that our union is "BY and FOR every member," but I have learned that it is anything but that.  It is largely "BY and FOR" one point of view. 

I have learned about the UFT-Unity Loyalty Oath and the powerful purse strings attached. I have learned how this harms non-Unity as well as Unity delegates from voicing their opinions or those of their constituencies.

 

-->

Due to the Unity Loyalty Oath, 800 members are expected to vote the same way.  Both Ms. Hinds and Mr. Roberson were elected as NYSUT board members last week.  I am sure they are deserving.  Yet, I wish that they had been able to win an election in which 800 delegates were not bound to vote the same way.  Although the honors for Hinds and Roberson seem well-deserved, the victory is shallow when the democracy is a sham. 

  

In the 2013 UFT elections, MORE gained as much as 40% of the votes in high schools.  Yet, their candidates were excluded from participating in not only UFT high school leadership, but also NYSUT and AFT elections.  This winner-take-all policy severely mutes the voice of the people. Our Union policies are not "BY and FOR every member."

From all that I can tell, Unity really takes very little interest in the voices of teachers today.  Less than 20% of current membership voted in the 2013 elections.  Instead of trying to encourage current members to vote, Unity succeeded in having the retiree vote count for even more by changing the cap.  The UFT is one of the only Unions in the nation to allow their retirees to vote. Unity recognized full well that retirees will more than likely vote Unity.  According to one retiree, "I generally vote Unity...if I like the status quo."  We are not living with the status quo though.  Teachers are under attack as never before.  The public-education system of the United States risks extinction.

Last Thursday, there was a NYC protest against Andrew Cuomo's policies favoring charter schools.  I do not know why our Union turned a deaf ear.  There are plenty of teachers waiting to be mobilized.  Teachers share so many common interests with the parents who support public education.  Yet, Unity was absent. By his own admissions, Cuomo hates me by way of my profession, public schools, my union and, indeed, all unions.  Our Union should be leading our defense, not refusing to ruffle the feathers of someone who seeks to destroy us all!

I know there are plenty of highly intelligent Unity delegates, but one can hardly know this when they are not allowed to exercise their free speech outside of the Unity Caucus.  They are forced to leave the caucus as drones directed to vote as one.  I have read and heard so much of intelligence from opposition candidates.  They have their own blogs and websites, with distinct points of view and some good debates via the comment sections.  Apparently, Unity is not tolerant of the same.  If you want your paycheck, you might want to shut up and toe the line.  It is sad.

I am aware that Mulgrew took a more conciliatory tone at the last D.A. meeting and I am very thankful for it.  I hope it is heartfelt and not a Campaign of a Hundred Flowers.  It is my opinion that the people who think freely and question freely without fear of repercussion, forming their own conclusions and supporting them logically and passionately as their own, without being directly or indirectly paid to do so, will always sound more intelligent than parrots. 

Hinds and Roberson conclude their e-mail to me in the following manner:    

"It is vital that we have the difficult and honest conversations necessary with one another and work together to ensure that we as educators are driving the most important decisions that affect our schools, students and profession. Only through asserting our collective voice on every level, from school-level consultations to the national stage, will we protect and strengthen the most important institution in America — public education.

"Thank you for the work you do."

In solidarity"

These are "difficult and honest conversations," only I am afraid no one at Unity is listening to me or, for that matter, to other voices.  Unity's "collective voice" is not collective and in many cases, on many important issues, sadly, it is silent.     

John King's NYC APPR System and the Illusion of Choice

We had a department meeting on Thursday. We discussed the MOSL, the measures of student learning by which we will be judged. We're ESL teachers, and as you may know, that means our kids are English language learners. So we have to determine some way that we will be judged by their test scores, because Bill Gates thinks that's the only thing that matters, and therefore Arne Duncan and Barack Obama think so too.

We have a MOSL committee in our school, and in August we determined that we would spread the joy. That is, if your department were to be judged by test scores, you would be judged on department scores rather than individual ones. We did not want teachers to be in competition with one another, and we did not want anyone to feel that helping a kid not in your class would somehow have the potential to do you harm.

So, because somehow the decision had not been made in August, or perhaps because John King had a new and even stupider idea than those he'd had previously, we were asked to make a department decision. One person said that since we were all good teachers, we ought to be judged individually. I said that there was no validity to judging any teacher, good, bad, or otherwise by test scores, and that a recent study suggested that variability in test scores was influenced only 1 to 14% by individual teachers.

Given that, I suggested we sink or swim together, and my department agreed. In fact, our MOSL committee had already made that decision. However, there remains the fact that we are gambling on one another, and that while some of my colleagues may do better as a result, others will certainly do worse. Can there be any validity to a teacher evaluation system that actually asks you to throw the dice and hope for the best?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I get a bad rating as a result of this. Does that, by any stretch of the imagination, make me a worse teacher? Let's say, again for argument, that I get a good rating because of our decision. Does that make me a better teacher?

Obviously, I am the same teacher whatever the rating is. I am no better and no worse, whatever John King's rating labels me. Firstly, there is no scientific basis to assume any validity to value-added ratings. Second, you need no knowledge of science to determine that shooting the dice and hoping for the best is absurd.

The other thing our department discussed is which test we ought to be judged on. Apparently, we had a choice of that as well. We took the recommendation of our AP, who said that the NYCESLAT results would likely show improvement. However, I teach beginners, and many of my students had never taken this test, having wandered in in September, or during other times of year when the test was not given. She told me then that the NYCESLAT results would be compared with the city's LAB-R test, which was now more closely aligned with the NYCESLAT. I pointed out that last year it was certainly not aligned with it at all. There was not much she could say to that.

So teacher careers are being put on the line and we are given various options as to how we'd like it done. It's ridiculous, but there it is. And despite promises that it would be negotiated by union, it was not, and not one rank and file member got a voice in how this was done.

Personally, I think I could observe a class and make better judgments than any test score, and I'd argue that teacher-designed tests are vastly superior to standardized ones. It was an awful decision on the part of UFT leadership to support this system, and an even worse one to leave it in the hands of fanatical ideologue John King.

The choice is one of which weapon you'd like aimed at your head, in the hope that you will select the one more likely to miss.

UFT Leadership--Taxation Without Representation

In most schools in the state, you have a smaller district than we do. From within that district, you elect a president. Your president represents you in NYSUT and AFT, and thus gets your voice out somehow. You can talk face to face with this president, this president answers your email, and this president does not tell you you do not believe in democracy in front of hundreds of people should you disagree with one of his or her decisions.

If your president does a good job, he or she wins re-election. If, on the other hand, your president doesn't get you a raise for over five years, you select someone new. Things like that don't happen in NYC because the overwhelming majority of teachers expect so little and are so mired in cynicism they see no point in voting.

I have no objection to paying union dues. I also pay into COPE. But it's disappointing to realize that I, like every working teacher, get no say whatsoever in what the UFT does with my money. That is the province of leadership, which has secret meetings with their invitation-only caucus, tells them what to do, and then hopes the rest of us don't pay attention.

Outside your building, you have no voice in what your union does. This happens when you are represented by a chapter leader. Let's say, for example, your chapter leader, like most, is a member of the elite and privileged Unity Caucus. If that is the case, your chapter leader has signed a loyalty oath to leadership. Your chapter leader can help protect your contractual rights within the building. Outside, where we are under relentless attack, he or she can do nothing. Your chapter leader goes to conventions and votes as told. Your chapter leader is forbidden to oppose mayoral control, VAM, the awful APPR leadership placed in the hands of John King, the miserable deterioration of seniority rights in the 2005 contract, or the Common Core nonsense that hurts not only us, but also the kids we serve.

On the other hand, if your chapter leader is not part of the elite and privileged Unity Caucus, your chapter leader has no voice in the union either. A non-Unity chapter leader can make noise outside of the caucus, but gets no real voice in the direction of the union. After all, that person doesn't know the secret handshake, doesn't have the decoder ring, and is not part of the top-secret processes in which decisions are made.

So it's kind of a lose-lose. The only voices that set policy for the United Federation of Teachers are those in the highest echelons. All we get to do is pay dues so they can keep having those top-secret meetings at 52 Broadway and jaunting about to conventions and forums in which we have no say whatsoever. Should we support a budget that will essentially give away the city to Eva Moskowitz? Gee, should we maybe think about all the UFT jobs that will be lost when she starts opening schools any damn place she sees fit? Should we maybe do something to stop that?

Apparently not. Leadership doesn't see fit to ask the DA whether or not it's a good idea to oppose or block a budget that cut the legs off of the man who many saw as the best hope for progressive education policy in the country. (If they did, the Unity wing would simply vote as they were told anyway.) Now I'm reading stories of how The Moskowitz Budget may be emulated elsewhere instead.

I don't know exactly when the UFT became about representing the leaders rather than the members. But I know it's a Very Bad Thing, and it needs to change if we are to have hope for the future. We are the last bastion of vibrant unionism in this country, and we need to wake up the non-voters. That will not happen as long as we embrace counter-intuitive nonsense that enriches our enemies without a real fight.

I'm glad I have a union, and I'm glad for its benefits. But knowing that it represents the elite and privileged Unity Caucus rather than rank and file is disturbing indeed.

My Phone Is My Life

Thus spake one of my young charges yesterday morning. I was shocked. I know this girl to be extremely social. She gets along with everyone. One of the things I really like to see among ESL students is that they befriend others who are not of their language group. This girl actually sits with someone from the other side of the world, and as far as I can see they are best buds.

But nonetheless, her little cell phone is what it's all about. I said what about your friends? She said she could text them anytime, as long as she had her phone. I asked what she liked to do. She could play games and look at videos whenever she felt like it. She has everything right there in the phone, an entire world as far as she's concerned.

I've watched my own daughter sit with her cousin and their friends in a room, all on various devices texting one another. I ask them why they don't just talk and they look at me like I'd just fallen from the sky. Why would they talk when they can simply text?

The other day I was doing a demonstration to try to get my kids use present perfect. This entailed having them walk out. What are you going to do? I'm going to go out. Stop--what are you doing? I'm going out. What have you done? I've gone out. One girl who went out decided she would not come back. She sat by the side of the trailer stairs and started texting. She was pretty surprised when I called her father that evening, and was not at all happy about it the following day.

Apparently, the phone is a priority. I see that girl's phone almost every day. I can picture it right now. But since I called her dad the other day, I haven't seen it.

I don't confiscate phones unless kids do something outrageous. Once a kid started playing music in the trailer bathroom. His mom was disappointed when she had to pick it up later that week. Another kid pulled his phone out of his pocket and started speaking in a foreign language in my English class. The US may be a free country, but we only speak English in my classroom. That kid did without his phone for a while.

I usually just remind kids to put their phones away and that works. Sometimes I will take a phone and leave it on the teacher desk until the bell rings. I understand these are very important to the kids. I'm actually pretty well glued to my iPhone.

But I know it's neither my life, nor the most important thing in it.

I really hope my students learn that one way or another.

Arwen Questions the UFT-Unity Loyalty Oath

-->

By guest blogger Arwen E.

I urge cooperation between my sisters and brothers of UNITY and MORE. 

I plead for the sake of humanity that tomorrow at the D.A. meeting in Manhattan one Union brother or sister stand up and ask for a justification of the LOYALTY OATH.   More adamantly, I plead that this brave soul not be silenced.  And, I ask that reason, not tempers control the debate. 

I have read through our UFT 50 Years anniversary book and I have found deep inspiration.  Yet, nowhere in its pages do I find any justification for a LOYALTY OATH.  To the contrary, I find only disdain for loyalty oaths.  One might argue if everyone votes as one, the voice is stronger.  I argue the opposite.  And, I will tell you why.

The LOYALTY OATH stifles both sides of the political aisle.  It silences all chapter leaders who cannot for reasons of conscience sign the oath.  Despite their election, in some cases repeated election, by their constituencies, they are blocked from exercising their duly-elected voice at NYSUT and AFT conventions.  They are blocked from lucrative positions in union offices.  The doors of advancement have shut before their eyes.  It is shameful. 

The LOYALTY OATH stifles UNITY members as well.   They are not allowed to freely express their ideas in public, lest they conflict with that of the leadership.  If they freely express their views at the DA and they run counter to leadership, they risk raising the eyebrows or ire of leadership.  They may risk losing potentially very valuable jobs in union offices.  They may risk seeing the doors to advancement shut before them as well.  They may risk losing the privilege to attend assemblies and conventions across the country.  Some run scared.  They supposedly have freedom of speech, but they all know their words may cost them.    You know this, too.

I have heard a few defend the OATH.  They state that they agree with all leadership positions and their membership is aligned with them; so, they have no compunction about following orders.  This is no justification for a LOYALTY OATH.  I'm sure leadership appreciates these jolly troopers, but it hardly justifies a threat of cutting off the purse strings from anyone who feels differently.

Yes, there are other LOYALTY OATHS in play.  The President swears to uphold the Constitution.  I take no offense here.  The Constitution protects my basic freedoms and a democratic form of government.  Doctors swear to a Hippocratic Oath.  I take no offense here.  They swear to work for the good of their patients.  Most representatives vote as trustees, in accordance with the conscience, or as delegates, in accordance with the democratic wishes of their constituency.  For those who vote a party line without question, without regard to their conscience or constituency, because they fear losing monetary rewards or privileges, I say this bargain eats at the soul and insults the firmest principles of democracy as well as human intelligence.  I say it may ultimately cost them their re-election.

One voice is not stronger when it comes at such a price.  One voice is not stronger when it silences all other voices through implicit threats.  One voice is not stronger when it potentially costs one his or her conscience.  One voice is not stronger when it potentially divides a chapter leader from his or her constituency.  One voice is not stronger when it potentially squashes independent thought and innovation.  One voice is not stronger when leaders potentially move forward, but the rank and file do not follow.  I do not wish to be a member of a union with one voice that rules thusly.   

I am a minor character in the great play of events, but I will not be silenced.   I speak solely for myself, but I speak for the right of every individual to have his or her say. 

Let's Go to the Videotape

Lauren Cohen and Mike Schirtzer address the NYSUT Representative Assembly. My comments are here.

Be Advised

I am growing weary of posting this in the comments, so I am placing it on the front page. Commenters may disagree with me. They are welcome to express their own points of view, whether or not I like them.

I will not tolerate name-calling or personal insults. You may not come here and call my guest-blogger a liar, which someone recently did.  I banned that person, whom I had warned repeatedly. I don't regret it at all.

Kindly refrain from personally insulting me, the guest blogger, or individual commenters. In my opinion, that does not advance the conversation. If you disagree, go post somewhere else. There are plenty of sites that tolerate this sort of thing, but mine is not among them.

This is my classroom and I will decide what is and is not acceptable. If you feel this page is opinionated, you are correct. It is commentary and opinion, and I paint what I see. I do not feel obliged to paint what you see.

I am the sole arbiter of what does and does not appear in the comment section. If you do not agree with my decision, I am OK with that.

If I find your comment abusive, I will delete it. You probably did not deem your comment abusive, or you would not have posted it. I understand that, but I am the moderator. You are not. If you continue to post comments I deem unacceptable, I will ban you from the forum. If you do not like my policy, that's fine with me.

Different standards may apply in other places. But actually, this is my place. I urge you to bear in mind what I tell my students--it's nice to be important, but it's important to be nice.

Thank you very much.

UFT-Unity Caucus Demonstrates How It Handles Dissent

Yesterday morning I watched from the audience as Lauren Cohen, a petite young woman from the UFT MORE caucus, got up and addressed the NYSUT Representative Assembly as a candidate. When Lauren mentioned the UFT-Unity Loyalty oath, my 800 brothers and sisters from UFT-Unity tried to drown her voice with loud boos. The moderator had to get up and explain that it was not in the best traditions of public forums to prevent people from speaking.

Lauren stood calmly, and continued undeterred after waiting a moment for the noise to subside. She demonstrated grace and thoughtfulness, neither of which was evident in the audience that saw fit to shout her down in the full view of UFT President Michael Mulgrew.

It is not in the best traditions of democracy to shut out dissenting points of view. Perhaps the participants deemed this activism.  But it was something else altogether.

In fact, activism does not entail drowning out your sister unionists, or voting in such a way that your part-time job at UFT stays a sure thing. Activism entails thinking, looking at problems, and finding ways to solve them. It entails consideration of multiple points of view, even those to which you may not subscribe.

Thus, it was an embarrassment when 800 UFT-Unity members tried to shout down their sister unionist. At the NYSUT convention, I heard many things said with which I did not agree. I booed no one. Nor did Lauren, and nor did any member of the MORE caucus.

Ironically, hours later, students took the stage to edify us about bullying. I hope the 800 members of the UFT-Unity Caucus who ostensibly represent us were paying attention. My friend Harris Lirtzman made this comment on Facebook:

Now let me get this straight, Arthur: it's OK to have a 'loyalty oath' but it's so NOT OK to mention its existence that the mentioner must be shouted down?

Unionism has to be about free speech, discussion and hopefully, agreement. Those who will not even allow us to express ourselves do not and cannot represent us.

Right here, right now, I defy the UFT-Unity Caucus to apologize for their attempt to silence this young woman.

On the NYSUT Election

Congratulations to the entire Revive NYSUT team on their victory. I wish them success and a productive term. These are tough times and I want the best for every member of our state union.

It's been a ridiculous few months for me and I don't regret a single moment. I'd do it again in a heartbeat. I've met great people all over the state and learned a lot about what my brother and sister unionists face every day. I've learned that most locals do not function like ours and I've seen faces of unionism that I hadn't encountered in 29 years on the job.

Last night I was shocked to meet someone I know primarily as a great bluegrass fiddler. He turns out to be the VP of a local. He leans right-wing and told me, "I never thought I'd vote for you for anything." But he voted for me nonetheless.

I thank everyone I've met along the way.  I hope to see you again one way or another.

For Most Improved Union Leader--Richard Iannuzzi

I've been reading and hearing a lot about the "Iannuzzi APPR." To me, that's remarkable. Here in NYC, Michael Mulgrew couldn't wait to claim it. It was the best thing since NYC got rid of the last coal-burning furnace a few days earlier. I didn't believe it at all. Diane Ravitch has consistently said VAM is junk science, and to me, the optimal measure of junk science in my evaluation ought to be zero.

Though both Iannuzzi and Mulgrew said this was a great thing because there was so much to be negotiated, I wondered about that. After all, having watched years pass without a contract, not to mention the one in 2005 that crippled seniority rights, I had a lot of reason for skepticism. For the last few weeks I've been traveling all over the state, and I've met union leaders who've managed to negotiate decent deals under this law.

There are exceptions, of course, and we're likely the largest.

Our leadership, for reasons that elude me utterly, thought John King, the reformiest man in the state, was a suitable arbiter between us and the fanatical ideologues that inhabited Michael Bloomberg's Department of Education. That's precisely the sort of judgment that keeps me from signing a loyalty oath to UFT-Unity. In other large cities, terrible deals went through as well, resulting in large numbers of bad ratings.

At some point, Iannuzzi angered the powers that be at the AFT. I have it on very good authority this is all about the endorsement of Andrew Cuomo at the AFL-CIO. While NYSUT's neutrality last time was not a problem, a NO vote from NYSUT would cost Cuomo the AFL-CIO endorsement. To be clear, Cuomo ran on a platform of going after unions, and there is no way on God's green earth he merits their endorsement or our silence. In any case, Lee Cutler, Maria Neira, and Kathleen Donahue declined to go along to get along. They, along with Iannuzzi, literally placed their careers on the line.

To me, that speaks of character. It's a whole lot different from supporting mayoral control, Common Core, and VAM just because you've signed a loyalty oath to support any damn thing you're told. That's what we have in NYC. And if you don't believe it, ask Andrew Pallotta, the member of the board who spent the last year running a coup rather than working in our interests. He signed the loyalty oath, or he wouldn't be where he is today.

I don't recall Pallotta saying one word against the APPR agreement when Mulgrew and Iannuzzi introduced it. For one thing, that would have been in abject violation of the Unity loyalty oath, and Pallotta is a former UFT-Unity District Representative. Pallotta's job in 2005 had to entail running around cheerleading for the disastrous 2005 contract, the one that reduced veteran teachers into wandering members of the Absent Teacher Reserve, a handy dumping place for teachers whose schools have been closed by Bloomberg. UFT failed to anticipate that Bloomberg's DOE would keep hiring teachers even as thousands of our members sat in the ATR. I love to teach. I would be miserable as a traveling ATR.

The legislative branch of NYSUT is run by Executive Vice President Andrew Pallotta. Thought they're vocal on APPR, I don't hear a whole lot from his side about the Gap Elimination Adjustment that starves our schools, the tax cap that keeps localities from compensating for it, ever-rising tuition at state schools, or the complete sellout to monied interests in the Moskowitz Budget. They don't talk much about Pallotta sending NYSUT staffers to campaign for UFT fave Bill Thompson. Maybe Pallotta didn't realize NYC Mayor was not actually a state race.

Maybe throwing a million bucks at Bill Thompson was not a great idea for the UFT. Moskowitz and her merry pals managed to buy Andy Cuomo for only 800K, so perhaps we could've outbid her. Who knows?

Here's what I know, though. An Executive VP who jumps when Mike Mulgrew or Randi Weingarten whistles is going to keep doing so for the next three years, and is sure to pick running mates who'll do the same. Sure, it's fantastic to go over five years without a raise and have the worst APPR in the state. If that's the sort of model you favor, you ought to vote for Revive NYSUT.

In fact, the only reason Iannuzzi and Stronger Together are being opposed is they've taken a principled stand against the "seat at the table" politics that have failed again and again in both city and state. And every one of the UFT-Unity chapter leaders who've signed the oath will have to vote for same old same old or face the traditional pariah status of those who've been shunned by leadership.

I'm an acolyte of Diane Ravitch. I'm always amazed that my politics, favored by just about every informed UFT teacher, preclude my participation in union activities. I'm even more amazed that leadership can hawk crap programs like VAM, Common Core, and mayoral control and stay in. Of course, that may have to do with the fact that over 80% of working UFT members don't deem it worth their time or effort to fill out an X on a form. That's the UFT-Unity model, and that's the model that will be replicated statewide if Revive NYSUT wins.

I'm not afraid of union leadership, and I'm not afraid to tell them when they're wrong. I only wish they weren't wrong with such alarming and predictable frequency. I certainly hope the delegates at NYSUT understand what they're voting for. If they want voices that will speak up for what's right, they'll vote for Stronger Together, Beth Dimino, me, and the MORE slate, which features my favorite chapter leader, James Eterno. (It was James who first called Richard Iannuzzi most improved union leader.)

After getting to know him just a little bit, I couldn't agree more.

The Moskowitz Budget, its Predecessors, and What We Do About It

The grab-bag of goodies we've given Eva Moskowitz is very disturbing. Most disappointing to me is Cuomo has more or less neutered the great progressive hope of these United States, Bill de Blasio. De Blaiso was elected on a platform of stopping colocations, and it appears much of his authority has been usurped by the state. The will of the voters is paramount in a democracy, but the will of Eva Moskowitz and her rich BFFs to contribute to Andrew Cuomo and multi-million dollar ad campaigns has trumped that.

I've seen zero evidence of any fightback from the UFT, and maybe Cuomo's sudden willingness to look at not judging teachers by results he's deemed unfit for kids is a payback. If so, it's far from sufficient. They're still discussing implementation, but there will always be issues when you implement something that is garbage. Putting it off for two years is no panacea for kids or teachers.

There's a long and consistent record of miserable education legislation in NY State. The APPR is flawed in that any percentage of junk science VAM is too much. While UFT leadership may have initiated one of the worst programs by allowing Reformy John King to decree ours, there are other flawed programs around the state. Nonetheless, I've spoken to union presidents who've negotiated much better systems than ours, and I think NYC teachers would be much happier with simpler, less insane programs. Clearly, whatever is negotiated, the optimal percentage of junk science in any system is precisely zero.

The folks at Revive NYSUT are fond of calling the junk science law the Iannuzzi APPR. Oddly, they neglect to mention one of their most significant supporters, Michael Mulgrew, was right there with Iannuzzi when it was negotiated. UFT members will recall that it was presented as the best thing since sliced bread. The most wonderful thing about it, of course, was that there was so much to negotiate. A UFT rep told my school it was great, because it was necessary to negotiate a contract to enable it. Not only did that not happen, but we also allowed John King to dictate the entire program. How UFT leadership determined King to be an unbiased arbiter boggles my mind. Let's take a look at the rest of the NY legislative record, presided over by Unity-UFT's Andy Pallotta and largely ignored by Revive.

The property tax cap law, championed by Governor Andrew Cuomo means that suburban districts are scrambling for ways to pay teachers and fund schools. Governor Cuomo, in his infinite wisdom, decided that it would take a 60% majority in order to approve a hike over 2% or rate of inflation, whichever is higher. My sources tell me this year's cap is 1.46%. It's beyond my comprehension that Cuomo musters the audacity to call himself a student lobbyist when he's championed a system in which people who say NO to our kids get more of a voice than those who say YES.

Couple this with a Gap Elimination Adjustment that cuts state aid, and you've got obstacles local districts simply cannot surmount. While the Moskowitz Budget gives some aid back, we're still not caught up. Meanwhile, Andy's kept $8 billion in the state coffers that could've gone to aid our children.

College costs are rising and aid to state and colleges is declining. We are moving backwards in all too many ways. We should be encouraging and supporting our children in their efforts for higher education, but instead Governor Cuomo is worried that people who inherit millions are paying too much taxes. Personally, I care a lot more about some kid who can't scrape up $8,000 to go to a state school. I'd much rather see the millionaire pay a few extra bucks than watch one of my students stuck in some dead-end minimum wage job.

And let's not forget Tier 6, where members pay more to get less. That's hardly how we support working people. This needs to be fixed.

We are union, and we need to take a stand. This is a pivotal moment. Parents are outraged about the Common Core abuse of their children, and rightfully so. It's a time to clue them in that VAM is part and parcel of the same cabal. It's time to unite with them because they are our natural allies. We share a common interest--we want what's best for their kids, whether or not it pleases Bill Gates, Eva Moskowitz, or the Walmart family.

NYSUT is 600,000 strong. Last June, in a rally the UFT didn't really bother with, NYSUT brought 20,000 people to Albany. That's a strong statement. Imagine the statement that will be made when public school teachers stand with public school parents.

This can happen. It has to happen. We can make it happen.

Why Don't Contractual Rights Apply to Our UFT Representatives?

-->

 By special guest blogger Arwen E.

Eight-hundred delegates from UFT-Unity will attend the 2014 NYSUT convention this weekend.  If some don't regard the Loyalty Oath as morally null and void in this day and age and follow the dictates of their conscience or of their constituencies, then Mulgrew alone might as well hand deliver his eight-hundred pre-slugged ballots and dispense with the charade of democracy.

I love Article Two--Fair Practices in our last contract.  What I don't love, however, is the paragraph missing after #3.

Our NYC Teachers' contract (October 13, 2007 through October 31, 2009) stipulates in paragraphs one and two that neither the Union, nor the Board, will discriminate against persons based on "race, creed, color, national origin, sex, marital status, sexual orientation, handicapping condition or age or membership or participation in, or association with the activities of, any employee organization."

-->

-->

The third paragraph states, "The Board agrees that it will not require any teacher to complete an oath or affirmation of loyalty unless such requirement is established by law."

Sadly, there is no paragraph to affirm that UFT-Unity will not force its members to complete an oath or affirmation of loyalty.  In fact, they do force their delegates to sign the following UFT-UNITY LOYALTY OATH before they can be admitted into the ranks and the doors to potentially tens of thousands of dollars in extra income and free trips with spiffy accommodations magically open before them:

·       To express criticism of caucus policies within the Caucus;

·       To support the decisions of Caucus / Union leadership in public or Union forums;

·       To support in Union elections only those individuals who are endorsed by the Caucus, and to actively campaign for his / her election;

·       To run for Union office only with the support of the caucus;

·       To serve, if elected to Union office, in a manner consistent with Union / Caucus policies
and to give full and faithful service in that office;

Loyalty Oaths were wrong at the time of World War I.

Loyalty Oaths were wrong as part of the witch hunts of the 1950s.

Loyalty Oaths were wrong at the time of the Vietnam War.

Our Union recently pressed to have retiree votes weighted more heavily in Union elections based on the claim that it would make elections more democratic.   Yet, as long as leadership stays in power, it seems to care little that less than 20% of the currently-employed membership votes.   Disenchantment runs high.  Democracy is on its deathbed.

Loyalty Oaths are still wrong today! 

 
-->

Given that I try to teach people how to think, not what to think, I object strongly to the demands of UFT leadership that its delegates, eight-hundred strong, vote as drones or as mercenaries given highly-paid Unity jobs.  Given that Unions are the lifeblood of the common people, our representative must listen to our voices (as a delegate) or their own conscience (as a trustee).  Nothing less than this will do. 

Leadership can argue that they listen to all opinions and then make the best decisions.  Yet, it irritates me to no end that some delegates are hushed by fears of reprisals and others who operate free of Unity's shadow find themselves restricted from speaking at meetings.  Is our Union a bully pulpit for but one point of view, claiming to represent all? 

For those who charge that I am sowing the seeds of divisiveness by raising the issue of the Loyalty Oath, I would say this is no better than saying an American who questioned the wisdom of the Vietnam War was un-American.  I am American and I will faithfully remain, in the best tradition of Woody Guthrie, a "Union Maid."

Opt-Out Rally---Where's the UFT?

Here are some of the presenters at the opt-out forum that took place yesterday in Comsewogue. I got to meet and speak to a few of them. Second from the right is Beth Dimino, the intrepid President of the Port Jefferson Station Teachers Association. All the way to the left is Mercedes Schneider. In the center is Comsewogue Superintendent Joe Rella.

GOP gubernatorial hopeful Rob Astorino was in attendance. Astorino spoke of his opposition to Common Core. He somehow forgot to mention his opposition to gay marriage or legal abortion, or his fondness for charter schools, and still mustered the audacity to accuse Cuomo of dancing around the issues. I certainly hope there is opposition to Cuomo, but I won't be casting votes for the likes of Astorino on this astral plane.

Rella spoke of a tribe in which the overarching question is, "How are the children?" This, to them, reflected on the community. In our state, according to Common Core testing, 70% of our children are failing. This, of course, is an unacceptable and invalid portrait of our State's kids. Rella, when I met him, likened himself to the conductor of an orchestra. He said the teachers were his musicians, that he didn't actually know how to play their instruments, and that couldn't do his job without them. For someone accustomed to the likes of Joel Klein, talking to him was revelatory.

I've read Mercedes Schneider's blog, and noticed her impeccable research. She told us she opposed Common Core standards because she had personal standards, and then called Common Core toxic for its failure to create a knowledge base. Then she told stories of how she'd give her high school kids said knowledge base via telling them stories, and it was very easy to believe. She's got a soft Louisiana accent, and I do believe I could listen raptly while she read a telephone book. But she's also ridiculously intelligent, and that's apparent to any and all who speak to her for more than one minute.

Beth Dimino is rapidly becoming one of my personal heroes, as she is a woman of action. She does not let the grass grow around her feet, and when NYSUT leadership was challenged for the offense of exercising their collective conscience, she made sure to stand up and help. Not the least of this included recruiting me to run against coup leader Andy Pallotta. As UFT was entrenched in supporting those who'd bend to the will of leadership, she found and recruited members from MORE, the UFT opposition caucus, to oppose those who favored the status quo.

And yet, at this event full of brilliant and moving speakers, the sole representative of the UF of T appeared to be me. No one from leadership showed up. I sat in front of NYSUT President Richard Iannuzzi, and two seats to the right of NYSUT Secretary Treasurer Lee Cutler. Two seats to my right was head Badass Teacher Mark Naison. I didn't see anyone from the so-called Revive NYSUT either, now that I think of it.

But even more disturbing than the UFT leadership's absence on this event, and relative silence on opting out was their incredible lack of reaction leading up to the awful budget deal hammered out in Albany yesterday.  Certainly it's important to raise the threshold for estate taxes, because Bloomberg and Cuomo always tell us incredibly rich people are so delicate they'd likely break if you were to touch them. But what was really disturbing were things like this:

...the budget also provided a major victory for charter schools, many aspects of which the mayor has long criticized.

Most significantly, the legislation would require the city to find space for charter schools inside public school buildings or pay much of the cost to house them in private space. The legislation would also prohibit the city from charging rent to charter schools, an idea Mr. de Blasio had championed as a candidate for mayor.

Let's take a look at that. Mayor Bill de Blasio actually ran on the plank of charging rent to charters that could afford it, and won overwhelmingly. Yet that didn't stop Moskowitz and her BFFs from giving at least $800K to Governor Andrew Cuomo. And though they couldn't afford to pay rent, they managed to scrape up millions of dollars to air misleading commercials to drum up sympathy for corporate-backed charters.

Now, it's whatever Eva wants, Eva gets. If de Blasio denies her space in your school or mine, she can simply find whatever space she sees fit and charge taxpayers rent. You see, under Andrew Cuomo, mayoral control is fine as long as it favors his well-heeled BFFs. When NYC elects a mayor who didn't buy the election with 100 million from his own pocket, all bets are off.

I got the chapter leader newsletter last Friday night and it contained not one word about it. Though it was parent teacher conference day, I found the time to call several legislators and urge them not to approve the budget. Though Mulgrew spoke against it after the deal was in place, I find it hard to believe that Shelley Silver was able to approve it without at least his passive consent.

UFT leadership has got a massive email bank and made no effort whatsoever to have members contact legislators. It's certainly done so in the past. There was no call to phone banks, and no significant pushback, if indeed any, to the Moskowitz budget.

And it's likely many teachers and students will suffer its after-effects for years to come. Personally, I'm outraged my kids have to sit in a trailer while Moskowitz can just go out and rent the Taj Mahal for hers, if she sees fit.

Representation in NYSUT for Hilton Guests Only

If you follow this blog, you may know that I'm running for Executive Vice President of NYSUT. You're more likely to know that I object to the UFT method of bloc-voting, which I consider neither representative nor democratic. I'm more or less an acolyte of Diane Ravitch, who opposes VAM, Common Core, and mayoral control. All of the above are supported by UFT leadership, and based on speaking with working teachers every day of my life, I don't believe rank and file support any of these things.

Of course, when only 14% of working teachers deem it worth their time to fill in an X on a ballot form, it's hard to say. What I do know is that I represent one of the largest schools in the city, that my members selected me to represent them, and that neither they nor I get a voice in our state or national unions. Meanwhile, chapter leaders who represent 12 people get a vote if they signed the UFT-Unity loyalty oath, promising to represent leadership whether or not it reflects the will of their members.

Over the last few weeks, I've traveled all over the state, and I've spoken with a lot of representatives of smaller unions. One cornered me, and told me that the issues we were discussing meant little to him. That surprised me. Common Core was not a big deal where he came from. What bothered him was lack of representation. I'd just heard that UFT represented about 28% of membership, yet had about 34% of the vote at NYSUT. When I asked for an explanation of that, I learned this was because many small locals simply could not afford to sent representatives to the Hilton in Manhattan. Thus, UFT earns 20% more representation. I can only assume that's more or less true for every union that can afford to show up.

Does this mean that at least 20% of NY, a state as large as England, does not get a vote in NYSUT? It would stand to reason.

Can you imagine if the vote for governor were like that? NYC would get a large voice, but you'd likely hear little from the suburbs around Buffalo. It costs $400 a night to stay at the Hilton, and it wouldn't be my first choice to stay overnight. Nonetheless, the UFT is sending 800 people there for the weekend, despite the fact that for many, it could be a subway ride away. How much would UFT save if they issued metrocards rather than hotel stays?

More importantly, how can anyone rationalize squeezing out smaller or poorer locals? Shouldn't they have a voice in who runs their state union? It would be very easy to open up satellite voting stations and hook them up by video. Perhaps it would be even easier to issue ID numbers and allow everyone to vote via computer. That's not my area of expertise, but it seems easily accomplished.

And maybe, just maybe, NYSUT could use a secret ballot, and even UFT reps could vote their minds or conscience rather than whatever they're told by leadership. In Saratoga Springs last Monday night that idea came up, and it sounded like a very good one to me, at least.

Personally, I'm bullish on democracy. How about you?

Are Electronic Gradebooks Changing the World?

So I was sitting in the library with my laptop. I don't usually bring it, but the fact is Skedula works abysmally on my iPad. We won't even discuss their iPad app. 

The laptop version is hard to scroll, does all sorts of unpredictable things, and requires multiple extra steps to get pretty much anywhere. That's okay for me, but I figured the parents of my students deserve better. So I brought the 15-inch laptop I'm using now, ran around early in the morning to ask the tech guys to get me online, and I was all ready.

This was be the first time I could pull all the grades up on my computer rather than inside my grungy gradebook. And I had two trusty monitors to help me, except they kept running out of the room to take care of some important business entailing I have no idea what. (They got very excited when one of their friend's parents showed up, sat very close for the discussion, and were sorely disappointed when I told them to take a walk.)

But none of that mattered because I had this electronic gradebook, and everything was going to be calculated to the hundredth of a point. No more guesswork or wild estimations. The parents would be dazzled by my incredible efficiency.

The only issue, as far as I could determine, is that the parents were not actually coming. There I was, watching my colleagues converse rapidly with all sorts of people, but there was no one here to see me. Had I done all this electronic grading stuff in vain?

After about a half-hour, I had no more time for reflection, as I got quite a few visitors. Here's my takeaway. The electronic gradebook looks a little better, but doesn't make a whole lot of difference. Parents are happy when they see good grades, and not quite so happy when they see bad ones. That's not a whole lot different from looking at grades on paper.

Personally, were I looking at grades of my own kid, I'd feel exactly the same. The biggest advantage, aside from having to wade through handwriting as incomprehensible as mine, is that you don't show the grades of anyone but the kid in question. I've gone to quite a few parent-teacher nights myself, and once when my kid got a grade I considered mediocre, I looked at the marking book to see everyone else seemed to have even worse grades. That made me wonder why the whole class was doing so poorly. I didn't ask the teacher, though. I asked my kid and we worked it out.

In conclusion, I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference, and despite how cool it looks to me, I basically told parents exactly the same things I'd have said if I didn't have grades online. I'm pretty sure I'd have given roughly the same grades whether or not I had the mathematical calculations in front of me, but I can't be absolutely sure.

All in all, it basically does the same thing in a slightly different way. It's good if the parents keep up on the grades and their kids, but what I saw is that the same parents who were going to take an active role did, and those who didn't, didn't. I won't go into more detail than that. But while I'm going to stick to putting everything online, I don't honestly think it will make much of a difference.

UFT Leadership Sends Us Charter Ad

Over the last week I've been approached by multiple members who've received a mailing from UFT offering jobs at "University Prep" charter school, formerly "Green Dot New York" charter school. They want to know whether or not their dues money is being used to send out these mailings. I don't know, but I've got issues with it regardless.

Green Dot was the swell company that had an LA school vote to have it take over, then fired 70% of them. It was started by Steve Barr, who seems to mistake Eli Broad for deity, and says things that would get you or me fired. Now the Green Dot name is going away, and our partner Steve Barr has moved on to undermine public schools via the parent trigger movement.

How many times has UFT leadership sent out advertisements for your school? And why does this fabulous school, which pays "a very competitive salary well above the DOE-UFT pay scale" need administrators, teachers of English, math, science, social studies, special ed., Spanish, PE,  and SAT prep? Why do they need counselors, secretaries, and teacher's aides?

What sort of workplace is it that has that many openings at one time? Why are so many people leaving?

After all, they have, "significant collegiality" at their school. It must be a fantastic place to work. So maybe it's the "extended school day." Perhaps people tire of working 200 hours a week. Who knows? Or perhaps they don't go for the contract. Oddly, this mailing made no mention of the fact they have an entirely different contract than that of public school teachers. Can you imagine going to work and finding you no longer had tenure, or that dismissal for just cause meant dismissal "just cause" they felt like it?

I've inquired at multiple levels of UFT to ask how many Green Dot teachers kept their jobs as a result of just cause provisions, and thus far have gotten a straight answer from absolutely no one. In fact, a very reformy friend of mine, several years ago, assured me that teachers were quietly "counseled out" of Green Dot, and that they never needed to use their just cause procedures.

Back when it was Green Dot, they boasted of how their teachers didn't have tenure or seniority protections. Of course they had a union contract, but calling it that does not make me jump up and down to work there, no matter how many times they label it as such.

And then there are the typical charter boasts of 100% graduation and 100% college acceptance. I've read so many stories of charters getting these stats that I find them ridiculous. What percentage of their freshman class made it to their senior class? How many local high schools got bad grades or faced closure, at least in part, due to the test scores of Green Dot's castaway students?

And while the school boasts of 30% special ed. or ESL students, what level were they? My school takes everyone, and I teach new arrivals. How many beginning ESL students are at this charter school? What kind of special education students do they take? Are they kids who simply get extra time on tests, or are they alternate assessment students? Actually we know they aren't alternate assessment students, because these students do not graduate with Regents diplomas. But my school takes them all.

Again, I can't be sure whether or not the union paid for this mailing, but even if it didn't, placing the UFT logo on the envelope implies an endorsement of this school's leadership, its co-location, and its advertising claims.

The last time UFT leadership sends out ads for my school, one of the largest in the city, was never. And we don't have dozens of openings, but rather dozens of applicants for each and any opening.

Why do you suppose that is? And why do you suppose we're urging teachers to work at this other place?

The Three Laws of Robotics*

by special guest blogger Arwen E.
 
A Robo-Voter Weighs the UFT-Unity Loyalty Oath 

-->

WHY IS THERE A UFT-UNITY LOYALTY OATH? 

Why are 800 UFT-Unity minds, representing very diverse constituencies, supposed to vote according to a single set of fallible dictates?  (See UFT-Unity Loyalty Oath above.)

Why do 800 democratically chosen chapter leaders lose their democratic voice when they sign on to UFT-Unity?  Why must 800 Unity members promise to vote as they are told?  (See Loyalty Oath above.)

Why are eight-hundred highly intelligent minds beholden to loyalty oaths reminiscent of those opposed by the AFT in the 1950s?  (See Oath above.)

 How can union employment opportunities be withheld from those members who refuse to sign on to this loyalty oath?  Should they be based on merit (like ability to serve or help) or simply blind loyalty? (See your non-Unity Chapter Leaders.)

How can educators raise generations to think when they, themselves, are asked to robotically vote as told? 

How can democracy thrive when Unity representatives can lose positions, all opportunity for service or advancement, and become pariahs simply for speaking and voting their honest opinions?

There can be no honest discussions of issues when Unity members are told how to vote and potentially silenced by fear.  Honest discussion can only begin when the Loyalty Oath has been torn away from its purse strings.  If you value democracy, shred the oath and then begin to open minds to a truly free and unfettered competition of ideas. 

*With apologies to Isaac Asimov 

The Sad Tale of UFT-Unity's Robo Voters

-->   By special guest blogger Arwen E.

Welcome to the NYSUT Convention in NYC. Your UFT-Unity representatives were programmed after last Wednesday's Delegate Assembly, and will be arriving at the appointed time.

April 4th-6th, 2014, Mid-Town Manhattan

-->

The Unity Caucus, representing about one third of NYSUT's convention votes, will send approximately 800 robo-delegates to vote according to the dictates of the Unity leadership, rather than the dictates of conscience or the dictates of a democratic representation of constituencies.  It is a sad and sorry fact that although our Union is the most powerful tool we have to defend the rights of teachers, students and public schools, it has made some very poor decisions in the recent past, including support for mayoral control in the Bloomberg era, Common Core State Standards which have blighted student populations and V.A.M. which will threaten careers based on junk science and simultaneously lead to endless lawsuits.  Will our Union continue to support union-bashers as well as policies to squash students and schools?  Let us take an imaginary look into the Hilton during the first weekend of April to understand some very real threats.

--> The Mid-Town Hilton Pool:  Saturday Afternoon, April 5, 2014  

-->  

Poolside, Saturday Evening:  Delegates Must Not Bend!

-->  

Robby Converses with Robby in the Lobby 

-->

A Breach of Security Sunday as the Convention Winds Down 

Will this potential breach to security be contained? Will our heroes be contaminated by rogue programming? Or will leadership thwart this dastardly plot from their magical and trusty seat at the table?

Tune in next time for another exciting adventure of UFT-Unity Caucus and their zany antics.