ESSA--Now Less Crappy than Before

That's basically the argument for replacing NCLB with a new annual testing mandate. You no longer have to use Common Core. You aren't required to judge teachers via junk science. Of course, a whole lot of states, including ours, already do both. And there's nothing in the bill that says we can't continue to do it.

In fact, despite Governor Andy's recent lip service questioning the junk science he championed and enabled, state law would have to be changed in order to sidestep teachers not only being rated at 50% by junk science, but also being observed by complete strangers who may or may not have agendas.

Then you read things like this, which seem to demand prospective teachers meet junk science requirements before becoming certified. The fact that they are not, in fact, teachers of record is neither here nor there. Aside from that, it seems like a bonanza for private academies that want to churn out teachers with less training, fewer qualifications and less education. Surely there must be some way to juke the stats and make a few bucks. It's troubling that such concerns, rather than the education of our children, make their way into bills that merit serious consideration. Perhaps more troubling is that such things seem to merit union support.

Personally, I'm wary of anything that merits the support of so-called Educators for Excellence. This is a group founded by two former teachers who claim to represent current teachers, but take tons of money from the reformies to do so. Their main aims seem to be more work for less pay, having teachers judged on junk science, and making us as close to at-will employees as possible. They sneak into schools with the blessing of ignorant principals and claim anyone who goes to one of their events as a supporter. Why would a group like that support anything that would help us or the kids we serve?

Naturally, faux-teacher group E4E supports the movement toward taking action against the bottom 5% of schools, which has included things like closure, receivership, and placing teachers in the ATR or unemployment line. I see nothing about addressing root causes of student underachievement, which entail neither teacher nor school quality. I'm tired of seeing teachers and schools blamed for our abject failure to address poverty.

Then there's the shirking of responsibility for students with disabilities.  While teachers are regularly told the reason kids fail is our failure to differentiate, it's really tough to do so when all kids face the same assessment no matter what. In fact UFT President Michael Mulgrew told the Delegate Assembly that chronological age ought not to be the sole factor in how students are assessed. Yet in their zeal to avoid root causes by heaping blame on teachers and schools, the writers of this bill appear to have done just that.

Aligning standards for special needs kids with state academic content is tricky. I've watched this unfold with the students I teach, who do not speak English. I went to a curriculum-writing session in which I pointed out to the resident expert that there was no provision for me to teach basic grammar or usage to newcomers. She told me I should use first grade standards for my teenage students. This explicitly indicated the writers of the standards had not considered my kids at all.

The icing on the top of the ESEA cake is the limitation of 1% for alternate assessment. This arbitrary limit might be acceptable if there were no more than 1% of students with disabilities, lack of formal education, or lack of English ability. Sadly that's far from the case, so districts with higher percentages of such students will continue to suffer, and will continue to be scapegoated for the myopia and willful ignorance of this law. Charters will continue to counsel out and toss out such kids as pariahs. They will continue to take no responsibility whatsoever for the huge numbers of students on which their alleged magic fails. Public schools will continue to be scapegoats, and will continue to suffer. In New York, collective bargaining agreement will continue to be abrogated as we blame schools and teachers for government's failures.

Sadly, it looks like allegedly progressive mayor Bill de Blasio will cave to the demands of reformy Merryl Tisch and start closing schools again next year. We need education priorities in these United States that entail helping kids where they are, not one that makes the idiotic presumption that 99% of them are in the same place.

And we need an argument more persuasive than "now with less crap." We are educators and we need to demand rationality.

Or is that to much to ask?

Inspiration

I haven't offered a whole lot of good news lately, but today I went to Bill de Blasio's inauguration. While it's true it was freezing out there, and I completely overlooked the necessity of 7 pairs of socks, there was something very special about the people I saw today.

Bill Clinton did not particularly thrill me, praising Emperor Bloomberg, but he was introduced by a CUNY student who came here at 15 from the Dominican Republic. There, in front of me, was a New York City ESL student introducing a President of the United States. This young woman was everything I want to see in NYC. I want an NYC in which kids have a chance to thrive, and a real shot at a future. I think they're more important than whatever stadium or luxury high-rise Mayor Bloomberg has wet dreams about.

And that vision is most certainly shared by Tish James, wearing a bright red coat but standing out more for her ideas than her apparel. She stood with Mayor Dinkins and held court about a New York that actually looked after people. No stadiums for her. No racist police policies. No Race to the Top, and no more people trying to live on $7.25 an hour. She is the real thing, and she will not sit silent while billionaires foist insane policies on working people. She's said she will be the conscience of the new mayor, and I have no doubt she will keep her word.

Also bruising Mayor Money was Harry Belafonte. Bloomberg sat wincing as his policies were parsed, as a vision as antithetical to his as any I've heard came from this legendary figure. Scott Stringer was no more kind to the mayor. The smirk he wore before people started to speak withered away, and in its place was the face of a teacher going through hour three of the most useless PD ever devised by man, woman, or Bloomberg.

Mayor de Blasio immediately addressed those who expect him to sell out. He said he was elected to put in place progressive policies, and that he would. He repeatedly stressed that this work was to begin NOW. He did not sound like someone who was going to turn into a corporatist anytime soon. If I were him, I'd be afraid to. Tish James is no one to be trifled with.

One of the most amazing things I saw was Michael Bloomberg and Andrew Cuomo sitting there, and neither of them playing any part beyond that of scarecrows. Certainly they'd have loved to blather their corporatist crap, but de Blasio did not make any room in the schedule for that. Cuomo looked chisled from plastic, or perhaps porcelain, and sat there smiling like a ventriloquist's dummy. Sandra Lee, by his side, was doubtless figuring out how to form some culinary masterpiece from boxed bread crumbs, canned corned beef hash, and vanilla extract. I can't wait to not watch her next show.

It's a hopeful time for me, as after 20 years of crap it's time for NYC to smile. I ran into blogger extraordinaire Jose Luis Vilson, who was sadly relegated to the cheap seats for the ceremony, and a friend of mine who's been working her butt off for the new mayor. Jose and I hoped she'd sneak us in and get us no-show jobs at Soprano worksites, but she told us they were all in New Jersey.

On the brighter side, now that we have a real mayor, none of us are going to have to move there.

The New Mayor

 By special guest blogger Maestro Político

I’ve seen a lot of fretting around the NYC scene that Bill de Blasio is going to be a disappointment as a mayor. I think many New Yorkers simply have PBSD (Post Bloomberg Stress Disease) — where the mere word “mayor” conjured up images of awkward Spanglish, 16 oz. sodas cans, Joel Klein /Cathie Black/ Dennis Walcott, and a variety of other traumas.

So New Yorkers did the only thing they could possibly do — elect a mayor who was the very opposite of Mayor Mike. Mayor Mike was short, Bill de Blasio is NBA tall. Mayor Mike lived in a Park Ave. brownstone, Bill is moving to Gracie Mansion after having started his campaign in front of his modest Brooklyn row house. Mayor Mike stood for all sorts of things and Bill ran a campaign based on being against everything that was important to Mayor Mike.

But now January 1st is less than two weeks away, Mayor Mike’s administration are cleaning their offices, and it’s like WHAT IF MAYOR BILL IS JUST AS BAD? Well, he can’t be as bad as Mayor Mike but what if he’s almost as bad? Mayor Mike showed so many ways to be bad as a mayor that people could fill up sheets and sheets with ways he’s bad, and still run out of room. Maybe you can fill up a whole library.

Well, I found myself unceremoniously unemployed just in time for campaign season 2013, and soon spent 9, 10, 11 hours a day volunteering to elect Mayor Bill. They always say campaigns reflect a candidate’s personality. Mayor Bill’s campaign was disciplined, but easygoing, and reflected “real New York” — a quirky mix of people from all backgrounds and ethnicities. There were a few requirements — fans of Christine Quinn/Ray Kelly/Mayor Mike were not welcome (duh) but other than that, it was a diverse, fun group. I remember people staying late in the campaign office often just to chat and drink soda.

But as election night neared, and polls showed him 40+ points ahead, a few of us diehard volunteers started to privately worry. We all worked hard, but none of us were rich, and we couldn’t even pretend to be well-connected. A big point was the Election Night party. Many of us said, “It’s going to be such a huge party with so many VIP’s, I bet we won’t even be allowed in.” “He’ll forget us as soon as the polls close.” The closer it got to election night, the gloomier the prediction.

Then the night before the party, the diehard volunteers got an invitation: stand onstage with Bill when he’s elected. Instead of officials and VIP’s, he’d be onstage with the ordinary, not-well-connected, not-rich volunteers. Once we got the email many of us spent most of election day planning our clothes and makeup to look good on TV.

After the post-election euphoria wore off, gloom again set in among the volunteers (by now all friends). Same insecurities, like … he’s Mayor Elect now. He hosted a big volunteer party not too long ago, with open bar and great food, and showed up to thank everyone. But it’s hard to convince a group of people that they won’t be forgotten, when so many politicians have done exactly that. (Cough, a certain president, cough).

So we started to chat again on Facebook. We hoped for things and tried to sound pessimistic enough to hide the oncoming bitter disappointment. Again, who were we? A bunch of not-connected, not-rich, in many cases not-employed volunteers. Then … just in time for Christmas, it seems, all of us got our Inauguration invitations.

Yes, the Mayor-Elect of New York City wants to be sworn in with the very group of ordinary New Yorkers who worked hard to elect him. A few of us (myself included) will be ushers that day. The rest will simply be freezing in the cold at City Hall, warmed only by layers of wool and the knowledge that a long, 12-year nightmare is over.

I think it’s a beautiful way to ring in the New Year, and a new era.

Oh, the Horror

Charter school operators, who enroll about 6% of the city's students, are recoiling in shock from Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio's decision to represent the other 94% of city schoolchildren in his transition team. Don't they read Gotham Schools? If they did, they'd know that charters should be covered at least half the time, if not all the time.

What is with this guy, including public school parents like Zakiyah Ansari on his team? Doesn't he know she's an advocate for public school children? Mayor Bloomberg never paid the slightest attention to her. Bloomberg knew that what was important was finding ways to pay charter operators three times what the NYC schools chancellor made, and indeed there are now several charter moguls raking in big bucks as a result.

How are Bloomberg's BFFs going to continue hopping onto the gravy train if this trend continues? Are we going to actually spend city funds on public schoolchildren instead? That would be an outrage. Why would entrepreneurs come to NYC if they can't make money off the sweat of our children? It's bad enough we outlawed child labor. Now, just when we're finally figuring how to make money off the little urchins, along comes liberal de Blasio to throw a monkey wrench into the works.

Naturally charter school advocates are outraged. Eva Moskowitz made her kids, their parents, and her at-will employees march in protest. This drew multiple stories from Gotham Schools, and perhaps de Blasio missed them. Gotham, of course, roundly ignores UFT rallies to stop Mayor Bloomberg from pushing his policies onto the mayor-elect, because such rallies are of no importance whatsoever.

Naturally, charter advocates, like Gates and Walmart, want to get their money's worth. That's why they fund Gotham Schools. But if Bill de Blasio won't take their money, how can he represent them.

After twelve years of a mayor who exclusively represented corporate interests like charter schools, a mayor who did whatever he wished on his fake school board, are we going to have a mayor who actually represents the interests of our children and their parents?

What would that New York look like?

Governor Andy Takes Another Principled Stand

NY Governor Andrew 1% Cuomo has decided he will work with Bill de Blasio, our newly-elected mayor, to make pre-K available for all city students. But he doesn't much like the part about people who make over $500K paying a little bit more in taxes. After all, Governor Andy has principles. He killed NY State's millionaire tax, because it's simply not fair that people making that sort of money should pay any more.

For one thing, have you seen the price of yachts lately? And don't get me started on strings of polo ponies. It's getting so you can barely afford to charter a private aircraft anymore. Sure, first-class reservations are OK, but they're simply not the same.

So Andrew Cuomo, the student lobbyist, is making sure the vulnerable rich people, so delicate they could break if you touched them, won't have to contribute an extra dime toward educating the kids who most need it. How will he find the money to avoid this tax increase? Maybe he'll take money away from older kids. Or maybe he'll hit their parents.

The important thing is, in 2016, when Governor Andy is competing with Chris Christie, or some other servant of the plutocracy, for the big bucks, he can't be seen as the guy who enabled a moderate tax increase to support our impoverished and needy children. Because Governor Andy is the neediest guy in the state. Sure, a typical New Yorker can get by on a modest salary, but Governor Andy needs millions, billions, gazillions to be nationally competitive.

It's a question of principles. Governor Andy's dad, Mario, took a principled stand against capital punishment. This was one of the things that eventually cost him his office. Governor Andy has taken a principled stand that nothing will stop his political career. And while the folks who fund him can forgive that he shacks up with the world's worst cook, they cannot spare one red cent to support New York's poorest children.

That's beyond the pale. And that's why he's Governor 1%.

Bet on Bill de Blasio

For my money, Perdido Street School is one of the very best NYC education blogs. I see things regularly I'd never know about if I weren't following him. For example, you won't learn that Bill de Blasio met with Rahm Emanuel over at Gotham Schools. It's certainly worth considering, as Rahm is clearly the scum of the earth, among the very worst of the faux-Democrats working people have to endure. While I'd rather de Blasio passed his time with people who are less insane, I have no idea what they discussed, and I don't think working teachers should let that influence their votes. Here's why:

1. You have no choice. De Blasio's opponent, Joe Lhota, thinks Mayor Bloomberg is a swell fella, loves his policies, and wants to double down on charter schools. He thinks skin color is a fine reason to stop and frisk people on the street, and wants to continue the Emperor's policies. He wants to continue the disastrous policies of closing schools rather than trying to improve them. He also wants to make sure people making over a half-mil per year don't pay another dime in taxes.

2. There's no evidence de Blasio is like Obama. A lot of us have buyer's remorse about President Hopey-Changey, who told the NEA he'd do it, "with ya, not to ya," and then appointed corporate crud Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education. Obama clearly favored charters and said so. He was supported by DFER. There was plenty of evidence about how reformy he was, but in 2008, many of us held our noses and hoped for the best. What has de Blasio said about charters? He's said he would charge Eva Moskowitz and pals rent. He's spoken out against colocation, and he wants to end the divisive and baseless letter-rating of schools.

3. De Blasio stands with unions. Last Friday I went to a rally at Brooklyn Borough Hall and listened to de Blasio speak about how union builds communities and middle class. He said he would end the policy of vilifying those of us who help run the city. He painted us as helping rather than hindering the city's progress, and promised this...

“I will start by actually liking the people who do the work.”

And also, de Blasio told UFT members at the Waldorf that he envisioned a city...

"where (teachers are) honored, you're respected, your work is put on the pedestal it should be put on, you're told every day by a mayor and a chancellor: we need you, we appreciate you, we thank you and we'll work together with you to help every single child in this city."

4. While de Blasio doesn't commit to retroactive pay, we are two contracts behind. Every teacher wants a raise, not having had one for five years. But Emperor Bloomberg opted to screw us in the 2008-2010 round of pattern bargaining, in which almost every other union got an unconditional 8% raise. Whatever crap pattern they offer in the next round will be seriously endangered if they decide to drop pattern bargaining by failing to offer it to us. For example, if the new pattern is 0, 0, 2 or some other such nonsense, there will be no reason for other unions to fall in line if the new mayor decides not to enforce the pattern. We are also involved in non-binding arbitration with PERB, for whatever that's worth, but whatever they decree, messing with the pattern could be enormously costly to the city.

Politicians and politics being what they are, there are no guarantees. Lily Tomlin said, "No matter how cynical you get, you just can't keep up." She's right. And I understand we can make mistakes. When UFT endorsed Thompson, it made sense to me. Wiener was then in first place, and I was sure he was the only person who could make Lhota mayor. But once de Blasio surged I refused to work against him. So did a lot of UFT folks I know (including some pretty staunch Unity members).

But the best thing we can do now is make sure we get out and give Bill de Blasio a landslide victory for the policies he publicly supports. I say vote early, vote often, and vote for Bill de Blasio.

And one more thing--the next mayor will be the first mayor with children in NYC public schools!

An Autistic Boy Goes Missing

And this happened in a colocated school. Is it a good idea to dump schools with very different kids into the same buildings? This argues against it. Clearly this boy needed to be monitored more closely than other 14-year-olds. This is a failure of the city system, a failure of Bloomberg's vision, and a tragedy for the boy and his family.

Why not dump a K-5 school into a high school building? Why worry about dropping 5-year-old children into the same building with 21-year-olds with two credits. What could possibly go wrong? And even if it does, the media could blame it on the terrible public schools.

The problem, of course, is that there are still kids with issues. Many come from poverty. Many have learning disabilities. And many still don't speak English. For some mysterious reason, people who don't speak English have trouble passing standardized tests. No one in government can figure out why that is, so it must be the fault of teachers and schools. The only solution, of course, is to fire the teachers, close the schools, or both. No less than President Obama cheered when a largely ESL school in Rhode Island was to fire all the teachers. Being generous, they settled for having the teachers come to work with severely worsened working conditions.

In the United States in 2013, we favor educational prescriptions that have either never been proven to work anywhere, like Common Core, or have been disproven everywhere, like VAM and merit pay. We're no better than climate change deniers.

Colocations are a terrible idea, lacking vision and benefit for anyone but privatizers and profiteers like Moskowitz. Let's hope de Blasio is what he says he is, and brings a much-needed wave of sanity to our city.

Give Up the Ghost, UFT

The UFT, despite what people may say or think, played a pivotal role in the recent primary. While Thompson didn't win, he pulled a strong second. Had the UFT not placed its full support and relentless phone banks behind him, it's unlikely that would've been the case. Perhaps more importantly, UFT pushed the execrable Christine Quinn, she who enabled Emperor Bloomberg's seemingly endless third term, out of the running altogether.

The question now is where we go from here. With de Blasio hovering around the magical 40% mark, should we support Thompson in a runoff? Should we even support a recount if Thompson requests one?

I don't suppose anyone will be much surprised when I say the answer is absolutely not. It was probably a mistake to endorse so early in this process, and that's underlined by the primary results. While I too thought Thompson was a good idea when endorsed, my buddy Reality-Based Educator was predicting the other shoe was going to drop on Carlos Danger. If he knew that, why didn't UFT leadership?

 Does the UFT want to stick to its guns and risk the embarrassing spectacle of having to then endorse a candidate we've twice opposed? Does UFT want to risk alienating yet another mayoral candidate, as it did four years ago when our good pal Thompson announced to the Daily News that raises for teachers were too costly to be a priority in our fair city?

Clearly it's time to give up the ghost, as several other unions have done. Now I don't expect UFT leadership to fret much over my opinion. After all, I'm not in Unity Caucus, so I don't know the secret handshake or possess the coveted decoder ring. And if I did, of course, there would be no blog anyway. It would be my duty, as per the loyalty oath, to shut the hell up and do as I am told.

Later today I will go to the Brooklyn Marriott and join a small army of chapter leaders who've solemnly pledged to shut the hell up and do as they're told. I'm hoping Mulgrew will announce we've come to our senses and decided to endorse de Blasio. If that's the case, I'll join the union phone banks, hand out pamphlets, recruit others, and do whatever I can to enable a victory for a mayor who doesn't appear to be insane, a mayor endorsed by Diane Ravitch and Leonie Haimson, among others.

If not, well, it looks like there will be just a little more "me-time" for your humble correspondent.

Eva Gets Creative

In what's likely to be the new status quo for the reformy crowd, overpaid charter magnate Eva Moskowitz takes surging Bill de Blasio to task for making the "choice" to send his kids to public school. The previous meme was simply trashing people like Diane Ravitch and Matt Damon, who had relatives in private schools. At that time, their absurd and idiotic argument was that such people wanted to deprive poor children the opportunity to goose-step along with Eva and Doug Lemov.

You see, in the quest for our tax dollars, it makes no difference that Eva and KIPP are not offering what's at Sidwell Friends or Dalton. Who cares if it's a test-prep factory you wouldn't send your kid to on a bet? The point is that is your choice. And the more crappy schools poor children can choose, the more money for the likes of Eva, Geoff Canada, and Rupert Murdoch, all of whom love your children more than you do.

The great thing about this is they can now trash absolutely everyone who opposes charter schools. You chose to send your kids to free public schools and now you oppose us taking the high scorers and leaving what's left for neighborhood schools to fret over? You, sir, are a hypocrite!

As am I, of course, for sending my kid to her local public school. What's really galling, if you bother to read her drivel, is that Eva doesn't want her fancy schools to have to take in the high needs kids public schools take without question. She repeatedly insists she's a public school, but let's face it, she makes twice what any public school principal does, spends all kinds of money on advertising, and sued to avoid facing a state audit.

What the hell kind of public school is that? Eva Moskowitz wants to pick and choose who gets to patronize her "success" academies, Eva Moskowitz wants to take state money, but she doesn't feel we lowly taxpayers have any right to know what she does with it.

Eva can write trash about Bill de Blasio in Rupert Murdoch's yellow rag every day of the year, for all I care. But it's pretty clear to me she isn't worthy to touch the hem of de Blasio's garment. And if I were de Blasio, I'd be glad. Who knows where that hand has been?

In Which I Am Courted by the UFT

For the past few days I've been getting phone calls and emails from union reps. Apparently it is essential that I get my butt over to UFT HQ and make phone calls for Bill Thompson. They'll give me Chinese food and a Bill Thompson t-shirt.

This is probably because when Tony Avella and Grace Meng ran, I not only showed up, but also dragged a bunch of people with me. I was very excited about supporting both of them, and I was happy when both of them won. With Thompson, it was a matter of looking at all the possibilities and deeming him the only one who was remotely viable, particularly with Wiener looming, and his victory likely to enable yet another Republican mayor.

But now, with Carlos Danger hanging in Wiener's shadows (and no, that was not a pun), Bill de Blasio is resurgent. I'd always preferred de Blasio to Thompson, particularly since he didn't tell the Daily News he opposed teachers getting the pattern raise virtually all other city employees got in the last round of bargaining. Thompson did say that, unfortunately.

To further muddy the waters, this week de Blasio, having been abandoned by the UFT, his erstwhile supporter, is making noises about how he, not having our endorsement, can better negotiate with us. You might say he is a fair-weather friend, as was Thompson. Or you might say the UFT was premature in offering its endorsement. But Thompson has also flip-flopped on stop and frisk, so you might see a lot of support he'd otherwise have received going to de Blasio.

I declined to work for Thompson. The UFT rep told me if I didn't show, I'd have no right to complain about the consequences. Apparently, he felt that statement would persuade me whatever happened in the next mayoral election would be entirely in my hands. It did not. He then started to tell me how intelligent I am, and how I therefore must understand this.

He continued to tell me that this selection was the most democratic process ever. It's true Thompson was popular in every borough but Queens, which had the good sense to support John Liu, my first choice. But it's also true UFT leadership, in the form of the Executive Board, made a recommendation to the DA. It's further true that virtually everyone in the DA signed a loyalty oath to agree with whatever they're told to agree with.

If that's democracy, then most teachers support mayoral control, value-added methods, being itinerant ATRs, school closures, and getting fired based on test scores likely to be as flawed as previous test scores.

He asked me if I thought the UFT would endorse a candidate who opposed getting teachers the raise all other city employees got. Given the UFT's previous positions, I was at a loss to answer. This is the same guy who got in front of my staff and promised that the union was very smart, and that the evaluation system would come with the contract and raise for which they'd been waiting years.


In a real democracy, people say whatever they like, and vote freely without facing the (gasp!) possibility of being shut out from future AFT and NYSUT conventions at fancy hotels. It may be good if Thompson is elected, depending on which Thompson takes the oath. I would probably go and make calls for him if de Blasio were not resurgent. But right now I'm not all that enthused. And if the UFT wants reasons, they need only look at the 82% of teachers who don't bother to vote in union elections.

I vote every chance I get. But I do understand cynicism, and I don't like veiled threats, shallow flattery, empty promises, or being bullied or browbeaten to do things for which I have limited enthusiasm. This is particularly true about people who've sorely disappointed me in the past.

Quest for a Union-Friendly Mayor

It's good to see UFT President Michael Mulgrew talking of mayoral dictatorship. Clearly, with 8 of 13 votes on the PEP, our fake school board, what Bloomberg wants, Bloomberg gets. Of course, this was apparent when mayoral control was established in 2002. At that time, the UFT supported it, perhaps even enabling it. As if that weren't enough, we supported it again in 2009.

Now we're contemplating throwing our support to a Democratic mayoral hopeful. That, in itself, is probably a good idea, but there are serious considerations. Number one, as UFT members showed, there is a lot of distrust for Christine Quinn, the apparent frontrunner. It's tough to forget she not only supported and enabled Mayor4Life's third term, but also grabbed one for herself. How yet another self-serving brazen opportunist mayor will benefit working people in NYC is a huge mystery to me.

Then there is Bill Thompson, who seems to have gained some traction with teachers. He worked closely with the UFT before the last mayoral election. However, after the UFT failed to endorse him against Mayor4Life, he supported Bloomberg's position that all city workers except educators should get raises in the 2008-2010 round of pattern bargaining. This suggests to me that his convictions do not run deep, and that he is easily swayed by circumstance. While I'd prefer him to Quinn, I don't think he merits our support.

That leaves us with John Liu and Bill DeBlasio. I'd love to see Liu get our support. However, the pragmatic nature of UFT leadership, as exemplified by our failure to endorse against Bloombucks in 09, suggests to me that won't happen. Liu is surrounded by scandal, and the Bloomberg-loving tabloids seem to delight in smearing him, though he's yet to be personally implicated in anything whatsoever. DeBlasio has been friendly with the union, and critical of slime like Eva Moskowitz, so he may be a good bet for us.

The UFT is right that this election is important. I also hope to see a time when we aren't waiting out the mayor, as we seem to have been doing for three decades. I only wonder why it's taken us so long to recognize mayoral dictatorship. Though I'm glad Mulgrew's jumped on the bandwagon, many of us recognized this years ago.