Chalkbeat, Arithmetic, and the Pattern

Chalkbeat departed from its wall to wall coverage of Eva Moskowitz and Educators4Excellence the other day to take a peek at those of us who work in what they call "district schools," and what you and I call "public schools." You see, it's important for Chalkbeat to employ the reformy lingo, and try to work it into the mainstream, just as it's important for Fox News to write up the nonsense that comes from the lunatic fringe and hope mainstream media thinks it's real.

I promised arithmetic, though, and my math teacher friends are sitting on the edge of their seats wondering how I will screw it up. I don't promise not to, but I'm pretty sure I can't rival Chalkbeat:

Unlike the first contract under Mayor Bill de Blasio announced in 2014, the pay increases included in the new contract are marginal. In that contract, starting teacher pay jumped by almost 20 percent — nearly $10,000 — because city teachers had gone without an updated contract for five years.

Now that's interesting. Not only that, but it's also partially correct. Well, except for the part that makes the last contract look like it paid more than this one. You see, it's true that we had gone without an updated contract for five years. What Chalkbeat couldn't be bothered checking out was that the new contract was for nine years. 

I'm going by memory here, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but what we got was first, the double four percent raises that NYPD and FDNY got. In addition to that, we tacked on 10% for seven years. Now here's where the promised arithmetic comes in---We got 4, plus 4, plus 10. That adds up to 18. If you divide that by 9, that means we got 2 percent a year. 

Except the other thing Chalkbeat couldn't be bothered with was the fact that much of this was deferred. For example, this week most of us got a pretty nice check we probably earned 8 years ago. Now if you take the three raises, 2, plus 2.5, plus 3, and divide that by 43 months, well, that's not as easy as 18 divided by two so I'm not gonna bother. But actually, it's about the same, and we don't have to wait ten years for it, which almost certainly makes it worth more.

I have read a lot about how it doesn't keep up with inflation, and I cannot argue that point. I will argue another, though, one that Chalkbeat couldn't be bothered with, and that is New York City has done pattern bargaining for around forever. In this century at least, the only way we've beaten the pattern was via givebacks. We beat the pattern in 2005, for example. 

All we had to do in 2005 to beat the pattern was work extra hours, enable the ATR, give up the right to grieve letters to the file, and I don't recall just what else off the top of my head. What I do recall is that the 2005 contract made me quite aware of union and turned me slowly into an activist. And it's quite clear to me that we cannot afford givebacks. You'd better believe that the same people screaming about how the new agreement sucks would be out with torches and pitchforks if there were givebacks, even for money.

There are gains in this contract, but you won't hear about them from its critics. Some of the same people who screamed for two observations now don't seem to care about them at all, and I have to tell you that is disappointing. It's particularly disappointing because I worked pretty hard to try and get this. To me it's a win. A lot of members I see face to face tell me they are happy about it. I don't know what to say to internet voices who demanded this for years and are unhappy now that we've got it. 

In any case, you won't be reading any of this in Chalkbeat. Here's what you will read, in another Chalkbeat piece full of the same errors as the last one:

City teachers will now be able to opt out of supporting the United Federation of Teachers, a dynamic that crept into UFT members’ reactions to the contract deal.

Hey, I'll bet the Walmart Family and Bill Gates, both of whom contribute to Chalkbeat, adore their allusions to union-busting. I'll bet they love watching Chalkbeat made transparently false comparisons of this contract to the last one, and I'll bet they love seeing the same writer trash our union using the same misinformation in two articles one after the other.

I wrote to Chalkbeat, and asked why they didn't write about fewer observations, or enhanced due process for paraprofessionals. I got a letter back saying that they didn't know about the paras. It hadn't been released until Friday, so they didn't know. But I released that info on Thursday, right here.

Terrific breakdown of new contract highlights from teacher's perspective here by @TeacherArthurG https://t.co/0e1S403kVP pic.twitter.com/A8dOEP6TOE

— . (@NYDNBenChapman) October 11, 2018

 
That's a tweet from Ben Chapman, education reporter for the New York Daily News. He's linking to this blog on Thursday, when I released highlights from the contract, after the city did pretty much the same. Evidently no one at Chalkbeat reads this blog. Evidently they don't follow the New York Daily News education reporter on Twitter. You know, if I were an education reporter, I would read teacher blogs and follow Ben Chapman on Twitter. In fact, I'm not an education reporter and I do both.

I guess I just don't have what it takes to make it in the big time reformy Chalkbeat news biz. My arithmetic is too good. I don't like to brag, but I happen to be a high school graduate. My teachers told me that would pay off one day and look, they were right after all.

Chalkbeat Blathers Otherwise, but We Are All ATR

As the city enters contract negotiations with the United Federation of Teachers, reformy Chalkbeat is, predictably, running a hit piece on the Absent Teacher Reserve. I'm particularly fascinated by Chalkbeat's assertion that ATR teachers are collecting "bonuses." I've been a New York City teacher since 1984, and I've never collected a bonus in my life.

A bonus is a one-time payment you get when your company gives you something beyond your pay scale. I watch a show called Billions on Showtime, and the traders get bonuses based on their performance. While the city has tinkered with various schemes that gave bonuses to schools and a few odd positions like "master teacher" or something, I don't recall merit pay to individuals ever being a thing here. If it ever was, it isn't now. And if it ever was, ATR teachers weren't on the receiving end. They certainly aren't now.

What Chalkbeat is whining about is the fact that our brothers and sisters in the ATR are subject to the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and that they get step raises just as the rest of us do. Like all teachers, they get credit for education above and beyond a BA. And hey, if Chalkbeat and the commission who wrote up this hatchet job wish to correct it, they can alter the pay scale so that all teachers reach maximum at eight years. I don't think anyone in the ATR will object.

The fact is the steps given for time are not bonuses. They are in our contract not to award us for breathing, as readers may gather from this typically uninformed and biased article, but rather to avoid having us hit maximum salary as quickly as we once used to. Because of the steps, the city saves millions and millions of dollars by putting off paying us, and by never paying max to teachers who don't hang around for at least 22 years. It used to be 20 when I started. The higher that number gets, the more money the city saves.

As far as I can tell, this "nonpartisan" commission did not consider any solution so radical as placing these teachers in full time positions. Reformy Chalkbeat considers this common sense solution "controversial," saying principals would hide the positions rather than allow the city to fill them. Evidently, principal insubordination is not controversial in Chalkbeat World. Since principals get away with sexual harassment and grade fraud and keep their salaries, I'm given to wonder what exactly they have to do before things become controversial.

One thing I really love about this story is the headline, which ominously warns, "New York City's Absent Teacher Reserve could get pricier as teachers collect raises, bonuses." Let's ignore the usage of English conventions, and let's ignore the previously addressed nonsense about bonuses. Let's just dig a little into the piece. After the various reports about gloom, doom, and costliness if offers us this:

Still, the commission’s report found that the Absent Teacher Reserve overall will cost less than previous years. 

Well who would've thunk it? Didn't the headline warn us about all those expensive ATR teachers? And yet they could become more costly. Also, they could become less costly. Also, for all Chalkbeat knows, money could start falling from the sky, and if enough ATR teachers pick it up, they could retire and save the city a ton of money.

Let's examine another assertion from Chalkbeat:

The reserve is comprised of teachers who don’t have a permanent position because their schools were closed, or because they face legal or disciplinary problems. 

That's not entirely true, but why should Chalkbeat trouble itself with fundamental understanding or research? Stuff like that takes time, and maybe via shortcuts, Chalkbeat saves money. Judging from this article, saving money is more important than trivialities like truth. Teachers who face legal or disciplinary problems are reassigned. The only ones who end up in the ATR are those who've already faced them. In fact, if they were deemed unfit they'd have been fired, not placed in the ATR. But hey, it's Chalkbeat, and Gates and Walmart don't contribute to them to hear stuff like that.

On this astral plane, the solution to the ATR issue is not firing them. Make no mistake, if that happens principals will be able to throw trumped up charges at any or all of us, dump us into the ATR, and fire us after a certain amount of time. While Chalkbeat says it's been done in places like Chicago and DC, they've proven disastrous for union and working teachers there. Of course I don't expect Chalkbeat or a "nonpartisan" commission to care about that.

But just like we'd be perfectly willing to allow top salary in eight years, thus averting those awful "bonuses" so bemoaned by Chalkbeat and the commission they dug up, I'm confident UFT would be perfectly happy to agree that all ATR teachers to be placed in positions. If they're as bad as the scary rumors propagated by Chalkbeat suggest, let the city prove it. The fact is they've failed to do so for each and every working ATR teacher who's faced charges. Otherwise, we'd be talking about ex-teachers.

As much as I and others have complained about the 2014 contract, we could have secured it earlier if the union had given up the ATR. Doing so would have placed targets on all our backs, not just those of ATR members.

No raise would make that worthwhile. Maybe the city should stop placing problem codes on the records of teachers who it's failed to fire. Maybe the city should stop sending them all over the place to work as subs. Maybe the city should place ATR teachers, if for no other reason, simply to reduce the highest class sizes in the state.

In fact, maybe NYC ought to stop attacking working teachers, stop forming "nonpartisan" groups that don't know the facts, and start a productive and fruitful relationship with those of us who devote our lives to teaching the city's children.

Me and my crazy ideas.

A Whole Lot of Nothing on UFT Contract

That's what you'll find inside this piece in Reformy Chalkbeat. Evidently the UFT is going to ask for parental leave and money. Also, they did a survey. We don't know the results of the survey, and neither does Reformy Chalkbeat.

Once again, if it isn't about Eva Moskowitz or E4E, Reformy Chalkbeat can't be bothered to seek out even the most basic information.

That's what passes for journalism in these United States, and that's why Donald Trump is President. If I were Bill Gates, I'd ask for my support money back. Except if I were Bill Gates I'd probably be happy to know every time Eva sneezed or E4E collected 100 signatures demanding more work for less pay.

As a living, breathing, NYC schoolteacher, I hope for better. Actually the city tabloids often offer that. It's hard to come up with something to say each and every day, I guess. Still, if I can do it with no budget and no staff, you'd think Reformy Chalkbeat could get someone to do it for money.

Reformy Chalkbeat Can't Find a Working Teacher Who Isn't E4E

When you read Chalkbeat, you know you'll get a diverse point of view. Whenever I want to find a broad variety of non-teacher opinions, say, about the new chancellor I go right there.

First, you get Michael Mulgrew. While Mulgrew is the head of UFT, he hasn't been a working teacher for some years now. Then, you get a deputy mayor, who I assume also does not teach either. (I don't see a lot of deputy mayors hanging around the lunchroom.)

Then you go to the person probably most quoted by Chalkbeat, Jenny Sedlis, Executive Director of Students First NY. Everyone knows that the way reformies put students first is by putting teachers last. Of course, teachers should be fired at will, because supervisors know everything. They never act out of vindictiveness. They are never failed teachers who moved up because they couldn't do the actual job. Most of all, they are never utterly unqualified, like Joel Klein, Cathie Black, Betsy DeVos, or any number of people who've run school systems. If Michelle Rhee says taping kids' mouths shut is the way to go, that should be good enough for anyone.

Naturally, you then pivot to James Merriman, the CEO of NYC Charter Center. Maybe Eva Moskowitz was unavailable. In any case, it's important to find out what charter school people think about the chancellor, even though they can't be bothered following chancellor's regs. Verbal abuse? Well, abuse on if that means they're gonna pass the standardized test. Corporal punishment? Let the kids pee their pants instead of leaving test prep because we're zero tolerance and we don't go for that human dignity nonsense. Oddly, I afford my dog more dignity than some charters afford their kids so I'll be walking him very early on this slushy and snowy morning.

Then you go to Houston Federation of Teachers President Zeph Capo and American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten: Naturally you group them together, because who can be bothered to distinguish between teacher union presidents? It's not like they're Educators 4 Excellence, in which case you'd need to get each and every one of their comments. Of course neither one of them teaches, so you haven't muddied the waters too much with anyone who actually does this job.

 You then, finally, get to someone very important, to wit, former teacher Evan Stone, who runs a group called Educators 4 Excellence even though he himself hasn't been an educator for years. I mean, he was one for maybe five minutes, but now he's got this groovy gig taking Gates money, and he doesn't have to be bothered with the trivial nonsense of actually teaching children. Chalkbeat once ran a feature about how E4E managed to acquire 100 signatures for something or other, probably more work for less pay. I work in the largest school in Queens, and I could collect 100 signatures in 45 minutes. But since I don't take money from Bill Gates, like E4E and Chalkbeat, who cares what I think?

Of course you follow that up by interviewing an actual teacher. Since you are, ostensibly, a site about education, but neither know nor can be bothered to look up any actual teachers, you leave no Evan Stone unturned and ask him who he knows. And who would've thunk it, but the only teachers he knows are also Educators 4 Excellence. So you talk to that person and you've killed several birds with one Evan Stone. First of all, you haven't had to bother with the messy work of talking to any typical rank and file, because who knows what they will say? Certainly no one at Chalkbeat, and certainly no one who relies on Chalkbeat for information. On top of that, you've managed to sneak in yet another reformy view while presenting it as that of an ordinary teacher.

Best of all you don't have to worry about those nasty bloggers calling you a reformy rag. You interviewed a living breathing teacher and no one can say otherwise. Who cares if the one you found signed a pledge of allegiance to a Gates-supported bunch of reformies that has no business claiming to represent teachers? The important thing is you can tell yourself you spoke to a teacher, and when you get down to it, that should be good enough for anyone.

After all, teaching is already a calling, so why should you bother calling teachers?

Correction: Of course they interviewed Eva Moskowitz. I don't know if they added it or if I missed it, but no Chalkbeat piece would be complete without her opinion.

Chalkbeat Says Good Morning, and Waiting for Superman is Mainstream

I admit I read Rise and Shine from Chalkbeat every morning. It's kind of a cheat sheet to find out what education stories I might want to see every day.  Also, they email it to me every morning around 7 AM, when I'm sitting with my computer in a department office. I was struck by the part of the intro yesterday, which read exactly like this:

Plus, a new study estimates the cost to district schools when students leave for charter schools. Finally, are you wondering what Oprah would bring to the table on education policy if she ran for president? Chalkbeat has you covered.

What's a district school? Had you ever heard of such a thing in your life before charters existed? I'd argue this is a term they invented. Use of this term legitimizes charter claims to be public schools, but in fact we know that charters are public schools only when they want public money. Eva Moskowitz waged a war with City Hall over having to sign an agreement over pre-K. Moskowitz doesn't do agreements. Whatever Eva wants, Eva gets.

Here's another thing--you may have read about how Eva's students pee their pants rather than interrupt their test prep. That's outrageous and abusive, I'd say. In fact, not only do I say it, but Chancellor's Regulation A-420, which doesn't apply in Eva World, prohibits the use of physical force. As a parent, if you forced my kid to sit and work until she peed her pants, I'd want you charged with that. If that didn't fit, I'd want you charged with negligence, abuse or both. I'm absolutely certain if I were to make kids pee their pants I'd be up on some sort of misconduct. Maybe at Moskowitz Academies you get a gold star, a raise, a promotion, or all of the above.

Who knows?

Then there's Oprah. Of course Chalkbeat lets you know all about her educational policies. Let's look at the headlines they run:

She understands racism and poverty in America — and how schools can make a difference.

Yes of course. The only thing is, racism and poverty have yet to be ended by schools. If they had been, Donald Trump would certainly not be President. And here's the thing--Oprah is a remarkable success story. Painting her as the rule rather than the exception is ridiculous. It's like determining that because Bill Gates didn't go to college, your kid doesn't need to either. And Gates, who Oprah admires, has steadfastly operated on the theory that poverty is too complicated, so we'd best ignore it.

Then there's the talk about Oprah's school. It's not precisely all roses, as abuse,  sex scandals, and other things make you wonder whether you want this school in your neighborhood. And even if you did, how could you judge American education by schools in South Africa? I'm not an expert on South Africa, but if I were looking for a country that really addressed poverty, I'd look to Scandanavia. Sit while you wait for Chalkbeat to do that.

She has given to education initiatives that cross partisan divides

Well that's all nice and well, but anyone following education knows that there are very few partisan divides. The Democrats suck, and the Republicans suck a little bit more. Charter schools are not viewed as a panacea by people who follow education. Of course, these people get little representation by Democrats or Republicans. Here's the thing--they get none in Chalkbeat either, even though it portrays itself as non-partisan. Maybe Chalkbeat failed to notice that Hillary, representing Democrats, failed to support universal health care, a living wage, or college for all. Maybe they failed to notice that the majority of Americans support these policies, and that they had no representation from the Democrats or Republicans. Who knows? The only sure conclusion is that Chalkbeat deems reforminess universal.

They're wrong, of course.

She’s also aligned herself with heavyweights of the ‘education reform’ movement

It's ironic they use the word also here. After all, they just said she was bipartisan because she supports charter schools. Who can forget the show she devoted to reformy Waiting for Superman, with Bill Gates, Michelle Rhee, Geoffrey Canada, and whoever else was the reformy flavor of the month? Last I heard, Canada walked away from his charter school, Rhee was hawking fertilizer, and Gates was still hammering away, undeterred by his record of utter failure.

Maybe ignoring poverty and blaming teachers for all of society's ills isn't the way to go after all. It depends what's important to you. Do you want to actually help the children of the United States? Then you're gonna need a new approach. On the other hand, if your goal is enriching Betsy DeVos and her billionaire BFFs, just keep reading Chalkbeat and chugging along the way we are now.

If you're looking for well-thought-out local information, though, you might want to check out Diane  Ravitch or Gary Rubinstein. They don't assume charter schools are better than public schools, and they don't assume charter schools are public schools, because they aren't. They are private schools that take public money.

Of course, that's my opinion. The difference between this blog and Chalkbeat is that I'll freely admit this blog represents my point of view. I'm paid by no one to write this. Chalkbeat takes money from Gates and Walmart, just to name a couple. They claim to be unbiased but they present the reformy view as though it's the Gospel.

President Oprah is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. Running a TV show is one of the worst qualifications for President I can think of. Of course, accepting reforminess as Gospel is just another. I wouldn't vote for Oprah on a bet. If she wants to do the country a service, she can take all that money she has, buy Fox News, and try to slow down the national plague of willful ignorance.

This notwithstanding, I won't be holding my breath.

Hey Gang, Let's Make Teachers Work for Sub-minimum Wage Plus Tips!

Chalkbeat, originator of teaching competitions it fancies reminiscent of Top Chef, lover of and advocate for all things reformy,  zeroes in on merit pay. Naturally, despite abundant failure, they find something good about it.

This is because there's some new government study favoring merit pay. Why? Because they say it raises test scores, which is of course the only factor worth considering in education.

It's not hard to find reason to question merit pay. For one thing, it's not remotely anything new. Diane Ravitch writes that it's been tried since the 1920s and has never worked. Nonetheless, the Trumpies, an entire stable of geniuses, declare that merit pay works better than class size reduction. Why get more attention for the students when you can give a few extra bucks to very few extra teachers and pretend you've done something?

Here's Diane:

The most rigorous trial of merit pay was conducted recently in Nashville by the National Center on Performance Incentives. It offered an extraordinary bonus of $15,000 to teachers if they could get higher scores from their students. Over a three-year period, there was no difference between the scores obtained by the treatment group or the control group. The bonus didn’t matter.

Roland Fryer of Harvard University just released his study of New York City’s much-touted school-wide merit-pay program. Fryer says it made no difference in terms of student outcomes and actually depressed performance in some schools and for some groups of students.

But hey, if numerous decades of studies don't produce the desired results, why not just keep repeating them until you find one that does? While I don't trust the Trumpies at all, Obama's education policy was almost as terrible, and of course there's a good chance this study was initiated while he was President. Sadly, I wouldn't trust any study sponsored by his people either.

Merit pay assumes that some teachers have merit while others don't. I'd argue that any teacher without merit ought not to be teaching. But if you want to prove merit pay works, you find a way to prove it. Test scores generally show little more than zip code. It's not generally a great challenge to get kids from, say, Roslyn NY, to pass more tests.

I wonder whether I've just been holding back all these years. Maybe if I could make an extra thousand bucks a year I'd be able to give this teaching stuff 100%. Maybe it would take 5,000. Maybe ten. Who knows what the magical number is that would make me do my job instead of phoning it in? I mean, we don't have merit pay, so that's what I must be doing.

There is an overabundance of dunces who wish to control education. Sometimes they're just stupid, but usually they also have a lot of money. The money thing leads them to think they must know everything and are therefore instant and final authorities. Oprah didn't feature Bill Gates just for his good looks.

In our school, as in all city schools, we have to figure out exactly which form of junk science is used to rate teachers. We choose, whenever possible, to have teachers rated by department or school wide measures. That's because we don't want kids coming to teachers for tutoring and being turned away. I mean, if I'm the sort of person who actually cares about ratings or merit pay, why the hell would I want to help one of your students? Why should I bother helping your kid when it would raise your rating, or your salary? I'm in this for me, so go screw yourself. That's the Merit Pay Way.

We kind of think, our administration and our chapter, that it's our job to help children. We kind of think that's why we wake up in the morning and do this job. Now I like money, and I wouldn't be surprised if our administrators like it too. I mean, they get paid more than us, but that's fine with me. I'd rather make less and keep the job I have. Nonetheless, we agree absolutely that it's an idiotic idea to put teachers in open competition with one another over test scores.

Of course, we haven't got the red hotline phone to Bill Gates, like Arne Duncan probably did.

Now even if money really is the root of all evil, I can always use a little more of it. I just got a new dog, and he has vet bills. He can chew through bones pretty quickly. Poopie bags don't grow on trees. In fact, I don't happen to live in a tree, and the choice not to has often proven costly. So yes, I would like more money. If I go to one of those 300-member committee thingies and Mulgrew asks me, "Would you like more money?" I'll say, "Yes I would, thank you very much."

But I'm a teacher. Like all teachers, I need a salary. If I wanted to work for tips, I'd be a waiter. And make no mistake, that's precisely the sort of job merit pay advocates would like ours to become.

Watch Out Padma, Here Comes Chalkbeat!

Chalkbeat is running some kind of teaching contest, and comparing itself with Top Chef. I love Top Chef. I started watching it years ago, and watched it just last night. There's a Mexican-American woman named Claudette who I think is great, and she just won Last Chance Kitchen, fighting herself back into the competition. She was judged by Tom Colicchio, an expert chef who owns restaurants all over the country.

Chalkbeat performs some interesting services, like collecting the morning education headlines, and making extra sure to find the ones from The 74 or Breitbart. They take money from Bill Gates and the Walmart Family. They run a feature every time Eva Moskowitz sneezes sideways. They let us know just how the former teachers who run E4E are doing in their quest to get teachers more work for less pay. They write a whole lot about the perfidy of ATRs and don't bother actually talking to them until outlets like this one ridicule them repeatedly

I went to one of their galas and they heaped praise on Some Guy who wrote a Book About Teaching. They showed videos of children being marched from one room to another like little martinets and were Very Impressed by how quiet they were. They made a big deal of some guy who passed out papers very fast, so as to waste less time. This guy could pass out papers so fast that the kids lost only seconds of whatever Valuable Stuff he was doing. (I'm thinking test prep, but what he was actually doing was not stressed in this video.)

It was funny, because that semester I'd put together a booklet of printed material that I'd planned to use over 40 days. I made copies, stapled them, and handed them to my students. I did not have any magical way of distributing them in 8 seconds. What I think I did was count the number of students in each row and hand them to the first person. Now they may have been in a semicircle, in which case I handed out a bunch here, then a bunch there, and waited until everyone had one.

Unlike the expert teacher in the video, I didn't worry whether or not the kids spoke to one another. I'm a language teacher, and I have this quaint notion that it's positive when students engage in genuine and spontaneous conversation. So there I was, engaging in this totally inefficient, time-wasting activity, and failing to monitor whether or not I could hear a pin drop in the classroom.

The thing was, despite my lacking the genius inherent in anyone referenced in the Book About Teaching, I distributed the handout once. They guy in the video, or the book, or wherever the guy was had to do it 39 times more than me. Now sure, I hadn't quite mastered the Art of the Joyless Classroom, and I haven't even read the Book About Teaching. I'm way behind on whatever groovy techniques they came up with. For all I know, they've read yet another Book About Teaching, and the old Book About Teaching could be yesterday's news.

Here's what I do know--teaching is not a competition. It's not a reality show. If it were a reality show, it would be judged by experts like Diane Ravitch and Carol Burris. The thing is neither of them would deign to participate in an exercise like this one by reformy Chalkbeat. More likely it will be an exercise in determining who can best read the Moskowitz Academy Scripted Lesson Plan, or who can make the Most Kids Pass the Test, or some other reformy nonsense.

I'm personally offended that Chalkbeat deems itself worthy of judging teachers. I've been reading Chalkbeat since it started. I rate it biased, reformy, ineffective, and totally unqualified to understand our jobs, let alone judge our work. We do not cook meals. We do not just do test prep. We deal with real people, and they have many more layers than the artichokes they prepared three ways on Top Chef last week.

Chalkbeat, Elizabeth Green, and Eva Moskowitz

I was once thrilled with Elizabeth Green. She wrote for a small NYC paper and was hands down the best education journalist around. I don't remember exactly what she wrote about, but I remember she was the only one doing it. She cut through the nonsense and noise and reported the truth, something in short supply both then and now.

I remember when Chalkbeat began as Gotham Schools. It quickly became a go-to for those of us obsessed with education. I was pretty excited when Elizabeth called me and asked me to write for them. She said something about my being a natural writer, which I took to mean that, despite never having attended some fancy private school, I was able to think clearly anyway.

One of my first pieces was about a Harlem elementary school being invaded by a Moskowitz Academy. I attended a public school rally there and reported what I saw and heard. Several parents said they only accepted students with higher scores. I was excoriated in the comments (They may or may not still be there. On several of my Chalkbeat pieces, comments have mysteriously disappeared.) by people claiming that wasn't the case. After that, I was subject to a really draconian editing process, more unreasonable than any I've been subject to anywhere. In fact, they let me go from this non-paying gig for suggesting that Cathie Black was sponsored by a billionaire (named Bloomberg), that TFA recruited from the Ivy League, and some other non-debatable point I no longer recall.

Later, when Chalkbeat ran some nonsensical piece about E4E getting 100 signatures on a petition for some ridiculous cause or other, I challenged them to do the same for me, and they said sure they would, no problem. We have 300 members, and it takes me 90 minutes to collect 100 signatures. I followed up, and collected 100 signatures on a petition demanding equity for ELLs in our school. Someone from Chalkbeat called me to follow up, but no article ever appeared. (So much for equity between reformies and public school activists.)

For years I've watched Chalkbeat follow every Momentous Moskowitz Moment, and often ignore activities by the UF of T. So I wasn't entirely surprised when Norm Scott pointed me to this piece by Andrea Gabor about how MSM slobbers all over Moskowitz like she's the second coming. And surprise, surprise, Elizabeth Green is among the prime offenders:

While Green notes that Success Academy students “regularly trounce their peers all across New York on state tests” she never actually gives you the scores. Rebecca Mead does—more on her New Yorker story below: On the latest tests, 95 percent of Success Academy students achieved proficiency in math and 84 percent in ELA; the comparable citywide scores are 36 percent and 38 percent, respectively.

This is important for several reasons. One is that the sole factor in considering Moskowitz Academies superior to public schools is test scores. I think it was Alfie Kohn who said that test scores measure nothing more than zip code. In any case, in a country like the United States, afflicted with extreme poverty, there are a whole lot of reasons why test scores suffer. In NYC, with 10% of its students literally homeless, that's far from a minor issue. With Moskowitz Academies keeping got to go lists and making students test prep until they pee their pants, I wouldn't send my kid (or yours) there on a bet.

Even if you accept the preposterous notion that test scores are the sole factor in determining the quality of a school, Andrea Gabor offers the following devastating tidbit:

We do know that attrition at Success charters is very high with the most compliant students, and the best test-takers, surviving. (Mead, in her New Yorker story, points out that Success Academy’s first high school will graduate just 17 students next spring, down from 73 first graders.)

This means fewer than 25% of the students who started in the Moskowitz Academy have stuck it out. This calls into question their proficiency rates as well. Once we account for the various unfactored losses, Moskowitz Academy percentages fall below those of the dreaded public schools who are supposedly sitting around Waiting for Superman. So despite all the highly compensated, hedge fund supported Moskowitz Mouthpieces, we outperform them in the only area they deem noteworthy.

If you also consider the facts that we do not treat our students like lab rats, that the public has input in how we run our schools (flawed and constricted though mayoral control renders it), and that teachers are not systematically squeezed like overripe tomatoes to be unceremoniously discarded like trash, there are various conclusions here that, alas, have escaped Elizabeth Green. That's a shame because, for my money, Elizabeth Green is as smart as just about anyone I've ever met.

What's worse is that, with Green and others pushing the unexamined Legend of the Moskowitz Academy, a whole lot of people subscribe to the corporate charter myth. There's a whole lot of money and power behind them too.

Just about the only things we have going for us are superior numbers and the truth.

Reformy Chalkbeat Peddles the Moskowitz Book

A few years ago, I used to write for Chalkbeat, nee Gotham Schools. I wrote a review of Diane Ravitch's book, The Death and Life of the Great American School System, which I loved. There was a very lively comment section, and for reasons not shared with me, Chalkbeat deleted it. I recall that UFT employee Peter Goodman counseled me in the comments that there could be repercussions for expressing myself. I'm a chapter leader, and I advise people all the time. I'm trying to think of a circumstance under which I'd do that in a public forum, and my mind is a blank.

Someone else questioned why the post went up when it did. Evidently it was during school hours. Someone from Chalkbeat had to explain that they put up the posts, not the guest writers. I was, of course, let go by Chalkbeat when my point of view failed to jibe with their mission, ostensibly to show all points of view without bias. You know, Fair and Balanced. Except the pro-teacher, pro-public education point of view, which somehow didn't fit. Go figure.

When Diane Ravitch wrote a book, they allowed me, a guest, to review it. But when Eva Moskowitz wrote a book, they get one of their paid writers to do a feature. After all, Ravitch is only the most outspoken and thoughtful living advocate of public education, so dump her on one of the guests. Moskowitz is a charter chain mogul, and thus merits Chalkbeat's undivided attention.

It's all about values. What do we learn about the Moskowitz book?

Moskowitz really wants you to know she’s human.

 
Well, that's illuminating. It never occurred to me to point out that Ravitch was human. I've seen her speak several times, and she's never made a big deal about it, so I didn't either. I mean, don't get me wrong, I adore animals. I'm particularly fond of dogs. Nonetheless, I've known very few who could write books. There is this extraordinary canine named Thor Michaelson who runs a spirited campaign against vacuums, but even Michaelson has yet to paw his autobiography. When he does,
maybe I'll write, "Michaelson really wants you to know he's a dog."

Of course, this could be figurative. It could just be that she wants to come off as less cold and calculating. I mean, when you let kids pee their pants, when you drag your students, their parents and your staff to Albany to campaign for your own cause, when you have a privileged relationship with a reformy chancellor, when you make lists of students who've "got to go," you may get, you know, an unfavorable rep. Maybe she wants you to know she's human, but let's face it, a dog wouldn't do any of those things. Maybe being human is nothing to boast about after all. In any case, you won't be reading about those things in reformy Chalkbeat. Instead, you'll read that, "Chalkbeat tried to understand why Moskowitz was such a lightning rod." This notwithstanding, it might be obvious to those who get their information from places other than Chalkbeat.

After reading a story by Juan Gonzalez, instead of asking, "Holy crap, how does she get away with this?" reformy Chalkbeat wonders why everyone is ganging up on poor Eva Moskowitz. That's the kind of coverage you get when Gates and Walmart subsidize the education press. You get "theories" as to why Moskowitz might be a controversial figure.

Look, I'm sure if I wrote a book about myself, I'd try to make myself look good too. But I'm just a lowly public school teacher, not a charter school mogul. That's why reformy Chalkbeat would never focus on the likes of me. Or you. Or the overwhelming majority of students who we, not Eva Moskowitz, serve.

What's next for Eva Moskowitz? Reformy minds want to know, and Reformy Chalkbeat is more than happy to oblige.

Reformy Chalkbeat Can't See a Public School

You have to see the headline here--After Blasting Success Board Chair Chancellor Rosa to Visit Success Academy on the First Day of School. Over at reformy Chalkbeat, it's Moskowitz now, Moskowitz later, and Moskowitz all the time, because that's what's important over there. Here's the thing--PS 55 is mentioned in passing:

“Chancellor Rosa selected two schools to visit in her hometown community in the Bronx, P.S. 55 and Bronx [Success] Academy 2, which are co-located in the same building,” said department spokeswoman Emily DeSantis. “These schools collaborate to provide the best learning environment possible for students in the school community. As chancellor of the Board of Regents, it is Chancellor Rosa’s duty to serve in the best interest of all schoolchildren.”

 That's a quote, of course. After that, the reporter goes back the Chalbeat beat--everything you ever wanted to know about the Moskowitz Academy. They rehash recent history, and fill us in on everything we read over the last two weeks. The writer says not one word about PS/ CS 55. For all we know from reading the article, it may as well be a lamppost. 

But I know for a fact that this is a very special school with a unique and activist principal. I met PS 55 principal Luis E. Torres at Fordham when we were on a panel together. I didn't agree with everything he said (what with his being a principal and all), but it was quite clear to everyone in the room that Torres was a passionate educator willing to go the extra mile for the students he served.

Torres has been principal since 2004, and seems to have turned his school around without resorting to the endless test prep that characterizes Moskowitz Academies. Torres runs a public school and you won't see kids there peeing their pants because they're fearful of abandoning test prep. You see, in public schools, they consider denying basic human needs to constitute corporal punishment. (Of course, Chancellor's Regulations don't apply in Moskowitz Academies. They're public schools only in the sense that they take public money.)

I'm pretty sure that Torres doesn't simply toss kids out when they don't pass tests. For one thing, he seems to have been underestimated when he was a kid. Some counselor told him he wasn't college material. I cannot imagine that Torres, after having made a career of proving the counselor wrong, would treat kids the way that counselor treated him. Also, what with his school being public and all, he can't make up "got to go" lists.

I'm not a professional reporter. I'm just a lowly schoolteacher. So ask yourself this--how come I know about Luis E. Torres and Chalkbeat doesn't? Isn't it their job to know whether the school has a health, wellness and learning center, for example? Shouldn't they know if he won awards? I'm absolutely sure that Torres has done a whole lot of things I don't know about. But here's the thing--I did five minutes of research and I know more than Chalkbeat does.

If you read the Chalkbeat piece, you'd probably mistake PS 55 for a 99 cent store, or a laundromat, or something. I mean, it isn't a charter school so why bother doing even the most cursory research on it? And really, what's the difference between Luis E. Torres and Iggy Wochuck? You never heard of Iggy Wochuck? Well, reformy Chalkbeat has never heard of Luis E. Torres.

By focusing on charters and ignoring what's great in public schools, Chalkbeat ignores the vast majority of what's going on in New York City education. The writer goes to Moskowitz for a quote, but doesn't bother speaking to Torres. It's all about Eva over at Chalkbeat World.

I don't speak for Chancellor Rosa, and I can't read her mind. But what about this--could it be that she wishes to see PS 55, it happens to be in the same building as the Moskowitz Academy, and she's therefore visiting that too? I really don't know, but it's just as possible as any other explanation.

If you relied on Chalkbeat for education information, that thought would never cross your mind.

Another Day, Another ATR Hatchet Job

The NY Post today has yet another assault on the Absent Teacher Reserve. Naturally, all blame is cast on the United Federation of Teachers and those who find themselves stuck in the ATR. No blame whatsoever is assigned to Michael Bloomberg, Patron Saint of Reforminess, who had an equal hand in creating this monstrosity.

Like reformy Chalkbeat, cited in the editorial, the Post bemoans the salaries of teachers without regular assignments, and also goes on to complain when the teachers are actually assigned. The clear implication is that teachers should be fired without due process. That's a slippery slope because we are all ATRs.

It's important to note that any teacher can be brought up on charges at any time, and that even if the charges are nonsense it's likely some minor one will be sustained. Maybe you used your phone in the school, or did something equally inconsequential. That's enough to fine you a few thousand bucks and place you into the ATR. Then you're doomed, if the Post gets its way.

Note also that the Post harps on salary. Teachers make too much money and it's best, evidently,  to fire them and save it. That's an odd argument for a piece purporting to be concerned about children. Do you want your children to grow up and be fired because their salaries are too high? It's not hard to infer the Post is fine with that. Those of us who actually care about children want decent working conditions for them.

...the ATR crowd averages 18 years of tenure — which means their salaries are too high for many principals’ budgets.

Yup, it's the money. I'm not sure how the Post expects to recruit the quality teacher it claims to want for less. NYC has tried that for decades and it's resulted in various intergalactic teacher searches. I myself got this job as a result of a subway ad. The utter lack of respect for experience in teachers shows how little the Post appreciates education, as well as a cynical lack of expectation that with age comes wisdom.

Another issue this brings up is so-called fair student funding. The fact is principals were not always tasked with worrying about teacher salaries in their budgets. This needs to change, and I hope UFT leadership moves toward making that happen. Doubtless the Post, which seems to hate the idea of teachers being compensated for their work, would cry bloody murder.

The Post offers absolutely no evidence for their main premise, that children will suffer as a result of being taught by ATRs. Make no mistake, this is a stereotype, promoted and reinforced by reformy Chalkbeat and others. If there are some ATRs who shouldn't be teaching, there is a process to remove them. Precisely zero of these ATR teachers have been removed by this process. The Post may or may not know this, but I do, and now you do.

Bernard Gassaway, former Boys and Girls HS principal, tweeted one test of that: “If ATRs are truly qualified top teachers, then place them at the highest performing schools where vacancies exist. No exceptions!”

It's interesting that the Post uses an argument from the leader of a school that, by Bloomberg standards, failed for many years. Also interesting is the fact that Gassaway himself took no responsibility for it, instead blaming the city. Then there's the strawman argument that UFT says ATRs are "top teachers." I have no idea whether or not that's true, and I'd argue, rather than stereotyping ATR teachers for better or worse, we should judge them individually.

All I'm saying is, by the DOE's own standards, no ATR teachers have been deemed unfit. Therefore firing them is beyond the pale. This is particularly true because Gassaway and the Post gleefully spread stereotypes about them. Not only that, but the DOE actually has a Scarlet Letter thing on the records of many, warning principals not to hire them even if they want to.

If the Post likes arguments like Gassaway's, I have one for them. Why not have the charter schools, which they say perform miracles, take all the low-performing, impoverished, non-English speaking and learning disabled students and work their magic? I mean, since we all suck and they're so wonderful, why not? On this actual astral plane, a whole lot of charters weed out students they find difficult, dump them back into public schools, and then pretend they don't exist. It's no coincidence that some Moskowitz Academy got caught with a "got to go" list.

I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of arguments that pit us against kids. I go into work every day to help New York City schoolchlldren. The Post represents the interests of privatizers hoping to profit off of them. The Post cried for years that ATR teachers weren't placed. Then when there's finally a program to place them, they cry even louder.

What the Post really wants is to see people fired without justification. It wants the erosion of due process. And with that, who will stand up for things that really help children, like reasonable class sizes and decent facilities? The Post? Reformy Chalkbeat?

Please.

The ATR and the Big Lie

I've never been an ATR, so I can't speak from experience here. My experience is limited to being an occasional substitute teacher, not one of my favorite things. I was in my school a few times this summer, and one day a secretary asked me to cover a class. I thought I'd maybe help out, so I asked, "Which class?"

She told me she needed a teacher for a day, and that there were three classes, two hours each. I told her thanks but no thanks. Two hours is a long time to work as a substitute teacher. I generally sub exactly once per semester, because that's what the contract requires. Some teachers volunteer to do more for extra pay, but not me. I don't even want to do the one.

As a teacher, I form relationships with students. They're not always the best, but they're always relationships. That's why I make it a point never to have students removed. I always think it's better they worry about what I will do, rather than some dean or AP. Really, what can they do that I can't? I also feel like allowing students to bother me that much signifies that they've won somehow. I've given up and shown them they are too much for me. I don't like to give them that.

However, when I'm subbing, I don't really give a golly gosh darn what the students think. I never have to see them again, so I'm happy to toss someone out so everyone else sees I'll do it. Of course, that works two ways. Obviously all the students know they won't see me tomorrow either. So why should they be on their best behavior, or anything remotely resembling it? Why not toss absolutely everything at that substitute teacher, and why not literally? Who's gonna know? Who's gonna care?

Now imagine that you're an ATR teacher, and your stock in trade is showing up and teaching whatever to whomever. Physics today, Chinese tomorrow. And then there are the principals, quoted in reformy Chalkbeat, who say how awful ATR teachers are. I'd only hire 5% of them, maybe, they say. And there are two issues with that.

Issue number one, of course, is if I were teaching Chinese or physics, I'd be totally incompetent. I know virtually nothing about either. Even if a teacher were to leave me lessons all I could do would be follow instructions, watch the kids and hope for the best. And the fact is that I get lessons for subbing far less than half the time I do it. Sometimes I hear that teachers should give lessons in their own subject area. Now mine is ESL, so it would be ludicrous to give such a lesson to native speakers. But even if I were to give one in ELA, imagine the reaction of a group of teenagers when a sub they will likely never see again gives a lesson on a different subject. And even if it's the same subject, it's ridiculous to compare the class culture of a regular teacher to one of a sub.

Issue number two is that principals, already overworked, now have to do way more observations than ever. NYC demands double the state-required two observations per year. Even if that were not the case, if I were a principal, it would not be a high priority to observe teachers who were just passing through. I'm chapter leader of the most overcrowded and largest school in Queens. My job is nuts (and believe it or not, I'm not complaining). The principal's job is crazier than mine. There is just no time to fairly assess teachers who aren't around very long. Frankly, I very much doubt the principals who cavalierly toss out these percentages have even bothered to look. The impressions we read about in Chalkbeat are fomented and reinforced by the stereotypes promoted by, among others, Chalkbeat itself.

If someone wants to make me ATR for a day, or a week, or whatever, I'd be happy to participate and let a reporter follow me around. Then they could see what it was really like. Personally, I doubt they have any interest. My success rate as a sub, by my own estimation, runs around 50-50. Sometimes kids are cooperative and I let them do what they want. Other times, they need to make a show, and I need to have one or two removed before they settle down. Sometimes, they never quite settle down and I can't wait to be out of there.

I wonder if any reporters from Chalkbeat ever had or saw a substitute teacher. To compare a classroom with a culture, developed over time, with one led by a total stranger the students expect to never see again is preposterous beyond belief. Watching Chalkbeat and others work up this nonsense so that "Families for Excellent Schools" can organize a dozen parents to protest teachers going to work is beyond the pale.

ATR detractors are mad the teachers are getting paid without regular classes. They're mad the teachers are getting regular classes. Their demand is that all these people be fired for no reason whatsoever.

For my money, they can all do what Mooch says Steve Bannon does.

Steve Bannon and Eva Moskowitz Trash Talk Trump

Everyone's heard of what rats do on sinking ships, so I guess it was bound to happen. Steve Bannon, maybe on borrowed time after Trump's odd comments about him, called up a left-leaning publication on record. He said some things that make sense, i.e., that Seoul would not last very long at all in Trump's fire and fury. He also said he hoped the left kept protesting nazis, thinking it would hurt them in the polls. I didn't agree with that. I almost never watch cable news at all, but the other day I couldn't even see support for nazis on Fox News.

Of course, the other Trump enthusiast to distance herself was Moskowitz, Count on reformy Chalkbeat to shadow her every move, whether jumping on or off the Trump bandwagon. Moskowitz was under consideration for Education Secretary, because Trump needed the reformiest people, and needed to be so reformy that people would get tired of all the reforminess. (In fairness, it seems he's achieving that.)

Of course Moskowitz needed to distance herself from him at this point. Of course, she didn't need to distance herself at other points. For example, before the hoopla of the presidential campaign, Trump spent a great deal of time in his quest trying to prove our first black President, Barack Obama, was not born in the United States. In fact, even when Obama produced his birth certificate, that was not enough for Trump. It's not too hard to see this effort as overt racism, particularly since there was no basis for it whatsoever. But I digress.

Eva Moskowitz was not put off when Trump said Mexicans were rapists and murderers. I was, because I understand the odious nature of stereotypes. In fact, I grew up in a Catholic neighborhood and got to experience them very young. People who traffic in stereotypes ought not to be around children, let alone teach them. But hey, it's okay with Eva Moskowitz, and she runs a bunch of schools.

Moskowitz didn't mind when Trump incited his supporters toward violence with those who disagreed with them. It was fine when he got a bunch of angry thugs all excited. After all, it isn't like they hate her students and everything they stand for, is it? Actually, given that they're white supremacists, nazis, KKK, and whatever, it kind of is. But that didn't temper Eva's support. Go figure.

Trump didn't think a Mexican-American judge could be fair to him. He expected the judge to be just as predudiced as he was. He acted like he didn't know who David Duke was. Forget that three weeks ago he was telling police to hit the heads of suspects on their cars. No innocent before being proven guilty for him, and no issue for Eva.

Then there's that Muslim ban. Trump said we needed to stop them from coming in until we figured out just what the hell was going on. I found it odd that he was running for President and didn't already know. I mean, you kind of look to the President to tell you what the hell is going on. The President has top-secret briefings and info not available to the rest of us. Of course, Trump was too busy read those briefings, opting instead for feel good stuff about himself twice a day. So it's no wonder he doesn't know what the hell is going on.  I's kind of our job to be role models, and it's kind of our job to help kids figure out what the hell is going on. But ignoring that was good enough for Eva Moskowitz if if got her favorable treatment.

And who could forget the "grab them by the pussy" moment, followed soon by Trump's claim that no one respected women more than him. My first thought was that women are in pretty deep peril if no one respected them more than some guy who was grabbing them by the pussy. A lot of us thought that was the end for Donald Trump, but there's the PT Barnum quote that, "Nobody ever lost a dollar by underestimating the taste of the American people." And then there's the fact that Trump actually got three million fewer votes than his opponent, which kind of put the kibosh on any arguments this was a democratic election. None of that mattered to Eva Moskowitz.

Moskowitz is used to manipulating politicians for her own interests.  We all know that Joel Klein, while closing public schools rather than helping them, was at her beck and call. Of course, he's gone now. And we all know that whoredog in chief Andrew Cuomo would appear at a charter rally just about anytime as long as those suitcases of cash came barreling in. But Cuomo sensed the mood was shifting sometime during the last few years of opt-out, and decided to change his image to Sanders Lite.

So there was Eva, all alone. Who could she turn to? There was Trump. You knew he didn't give a damn about opt-out. I mean, a man who refused to criticize white supremacists and KKK was unlikely to come out against standardized testing. It seemed foolproof.

But then came the day that not even Fox News would rationalize his actions and Eva knew she'd made a mistake. So she wrote a letter. Now I can only assume she's now good with herself. She should have been "more outspoken" against all the things she evidently found completely acceptable. She also she has a book to sell.

I can't wait for reformy Chalkbeat to tell us how wonderful it is.

Who Had this Man Fired?

There's an amazing and multi-layered story in yesterday's NY Post. A lot of people say that teachers can never be fired, but here's a story about one who was. (And he isn't the only one, because I know others.) I see a bunch of charges, none of which seem to merit a whole lot of response, if any.

Evidently this school has a gender-bender day, where students dress up as the opposite sex. I wonder how students already struggling with gender issues would feel about that. I wonder how parents would feel. In any case, gender-bender is a thing at this school, but visits to Malcolm X's grave site are off limits. And wouldn't you know it? This teacher not only questioned gender-bender day, but also wanted to take his students to see Malcolm's grave site.

But that's not all this teacher did. He turned the lights off while showing a video! Can you imagine? Not only that, but he showed a clip from a Boondocks cartoon, and maybe there was a bad word or something. Also, he used a cell phone in school. (I actually don't know any teacher who has not used a cell phone in school. And in fact, when I show a video clip, students routinely get up and switch the lights off. I let them do it, so maybe I should be fired too.)

This is the flip side of all the crap spread around by Campbell Brown, and the incurious one-sided reporting of Chalkbeat. In fact, it even links to another story that says what's really going on, which evidently escaped the notice of the arbitrator who ordered the firing. You see the principal, the one Campbell Brown wants to make firing decisions, was embroiled in a cheating scandal. And waddya know, the fired teacher was one of the ones who blew the whistle on him.

At first, they fined the teacher $2,000 for this petty nonsense and placed him in the ATR. You'd think the principal would be happy just to bounce this guy, who as far as I can tell did nothing of significance beyond blowing a whistle. Maybe, if the video clip was that questionable, they could have asked him not to show clips like that. But evidently that's not enough, so the principal, or the DOE, or likely both decided to dredge up whatever they could muster, and do a second 3020a on this guy. The genius arbitrator went for it hook, line, and sinker and fired the guy.

I mean, hey, a teacher who turns the lights off when he shows a video? A teacher who uses his cell phone in the school? This is the anti-Campbell Brown. UFT, or anyone, could use this guy as the face of why principals and the DOE should not and cannot be entrusted to fire people without due process. In fact, this is an argument that due process can go awry, and that even $1600 a day arbitrators are not infallible.

An incredible takeaway here is that this principal has never taught except as a sub. How on earth does the DOE hire someone like this? For all I know, he's Leadership Academy. After all, Klein saw teachers as just another stop on the Axis of Evil. Why not just drag someone off the street and make that person principal? I have no idea where this principal came from, but the story certainly alleges some funny things were happening at this school.

This fired teacher embarrassed not only the principal, but also the DOE. Who decided that this whistleblower needed to pay? Who dredged up a bunch of ridiculous charges and took this man's job? And what on earth made an arbitrator decide there was merit to this nonsense?

Let's also be clear on this--all the charges that the teacher faced on 3020a number two occurred before 3020a number one. You see, once you've been placed in the ATR, even for inconsequential nonsense that garners a $2,000 fine, you're under a microscope. Did the DOE deliberately save half of their trumped-up nonsense for round two so they could fire this guy?

Honestly, I see nothing here that merits one round of 3020a charges, let alone two. At the very worst, if the Boondocks video were that egregious, it could be a letter to file. This story, to me at least, is conclusive evidence that the DOE should not be trusted to fire teachers. And that's before we even look at the shoddy judgment of the highly-paid arbitrator. The fact that all charges happened before 3020a round one suggests the arbitrator's conclusion the teacher was "beyond remediation" is  utterly flawed and false on its face.

I was a little tough on the NY Post the other day, but they have their moments. This is one of them. Maybe they'll do better if they read their own stories before stereotyping ATR teachers, many of whom are in the ATR for reasons like these, or no reason at all.

Super-Reformy Chalkbeat Gives Both Reformy Sides

Naturally, I'm impressed that Chalkbeat went the extra mile, quoting not only Eva Moskowitz, but also the so-called Families for Excellent Schools, an astroturf org whose primary function appears to be supporting Moskowitz. Sometimes it's not enough to only get Eva's side, and it's important to also know how her professional cheering section feels. (In case you're wondering, they support her.) That way, we get a more thorough understanding of the pro-charter side of the issue.

What might you lose when you go out of your way to focus on both reformy sides? A commenter at Chalkbeat offers a taste:

This Chalkbeat article left out the information that Mayor de Blasio offered space to some of these charter schools and the charter schools rejected it because it was not in the expensive neighborhood where it would be much easier to market to the affluent students they prefer to teach.

Odd how the ace reporters at Gates-Walmart funded Chalkbeat forgot that part. Essentially, the story says that charters wish de Blasio to show his good will by giving up and surrendering space. Given the comment, I guess it can't just be any space. After all, Eva needs to be particular. And she can't really complete her rampant expansion plans without  precisely the right space for her private schools that can't be bothered following city regulations. So why shouldn't the taxpayers foot the bill so she can go wherever she goshdarn pleases? You can't expect Chalkbeat to delve too deeply into questions like those, because you know, their reporters are busy, and haven't got time to think about all that stuff.

The important thing, though, is that Eva get her space. After all, Mayor Bill de Blasio ran on an anti-charter platform and won an overwhelming victory, but screw him and everyone who voted for him (and don't even mention that, ever). Governor Cuomo mounted his white steed and rode to Eva's rescue, passing a law that NYC had to pay for Eva's charter schools whether the city wanted them or not. (And for the record, I don't recall UFT leadership raising a peep in protest.)

Not to belabor the point, but Chalkbeat reporters have a lot of things to do. It isn't easy running a Gates-Walton funded operation. They don't have time to find answers to nagging questions,  let alone speak to lowly teachers. If you read yesterday's comment section, you'll see they actually don't even know any, so they asked a commenter who teaches in LA whether he could put them in touch with NYC teachers. Because, you know, they're Very Important, and he's a teacher. Therefore he has nothing better to do than find them contacts in their own town. That's the sort of bold, proactive journalism we've come to expect from Chalkbeat.

In fact, because they pay a whole lot of people a whole lot of money, the charter folks have gotten this story out to a whole lot of local press. You'd think maybe Chalkbeat, with its sole focus on education, might provide a little more depth to the story, but you'd be wrong. From reading Chalkbeat, you'd think there was space all over the city, just waiting for Eva to appropriate it.

Evidently, Chalkbeat is unaware of issues like oversized classes and overcrowding, because honestly, who cares about that stuff? Not Walton and Gates, who fund Chalkbeat. So why should they bother looking into stuff like that? I mean, how would that help Families for Excellent Schools or Eva Moskowitz? How would it help E4E, the Gates-funded group Chalkbeat turns to when it needs the vital opinions of former teachers?

Here on planet earth, I work in a school that overcrowded to the point of bursting. We're slated to have over 4,700 students, more than ever, and I have no idea how we are going to accommodate them. With the help of UFT, we were able to negotiate an annex that will provide us with ten extra classrooms after we lose the trailers. But that will take a few years, and while we wait the DOE has generously provided up with hundreds of extra students, pretty much canceling the value of the extra space before we even get it.

But hey, why worry about that? The important thing is that Moskowitz get her space, and that paid charter shills drown out the voices of those of us who actually do this work. Why on earth would we give extra space to actual public school students? Who lobbies for them?

Actually I do. So do people like Leonie Haimson, Diane Ravitch, Carol Burris, Jeanette Deutermann and others. So do a whole lot of working teachers. What do they think about this?

If you're relying on Chalkbeat for information, you'll never find out.

Reformy Chalkbeat Doubles Down on ATRs, Informs Readers It Knows Nothing

In yet another article, reformy Chalkbeat ponders the issues involved with the ATR. Naturally, they don't bother to interview an actual ATR, because what value could that possibly have? As usual, the experience of the people living through this particular social experiment is given not a single word. After all, why should they talk to working teachers when Students First and others pay people to spout The Gospel According to Gates and Walmart, both of whom fund Chalkbeat?

The first question Chalkbeat has is about the average number of years an ATR teacher has. Naturally, they bring up the cost of the ATR so their readers and funders can deplore it and call for their heads. Then it cites seven-year-old figures, because why bother digging for new ones? And why bother talking to ATR teachers and reflecting on their experience? If they were to do that, they might as well be education bloggers, or others who actually talk to ATR teachers on a daily basis. You won't see people like that writing for Chalkbeat anytime soon. So the answer to Chalkbeat's big question is, "We don't know."

The next urgent question Chalkbeat has is how many teachers are in the ATR for disciplinary reasons. Naturally Chalkbeat goes to TNTP, created by Michelle Rhee, because you can just never have too much reforminess is a piece of education reporting. And for the record, the TNTP CEO is another guy who trashes ATRs in the pages of Campbell Brown's blog, so his opinion, while utterly predictable, is indispensable. What teachers may have been accused of, whether they have been deemed guilty of said accusations, or whether the charges were trumped-up nonsense is of no relevance and therefore not even mentioned. It's always easier to assume they are all unfit even though none have been found to be. And again, Chalkbeat does not waste one minute of valuable time talking to an actual teacher and answers the question, "We don't know."

How long have teachers been in the pool? Chalkbeat again goes to teacher-bashing TNTP, because why bother talking to anyone else? Teachers? ATR teachers? Meh. After all, Chalkbeat reporters aren't paid by the hour.  The answer? "We don't know." In fairness, Chalkbeat also suggests a principal thinks ATR teachers may not have received PD, and may therefore be unfit. Every teacher reading this has been to PD, and every teacher reading this could have advised Chalkbeat on its value. Fortunately for Chalkbeat, they don't talk to working teachers, so that makes their job a little easier.

Chalkbeat also asks where ATR teachers have worked in the past. As someone who regularly communicates with ATR teachers, I'd say, "Everywhere." Chalkbeat, of course, can't be bothered talking to those of us who actually do the work, so their answer, yet again, is "We don't know." But it's important because the teachers, the ones they have not established to have done anything wrong, may have done something wrong, and may be placed in low income areas. Here's a newsflash, Chalkbeat. Anyone may have done something wrong. You, for example, may have done a half-baked, biased job of reporting, and people in low-income areas may rely on you for information.

Finally, Chalkbeat asks the important question--what are ATR teachers certified in? And guess what? They don't know. Chalkbeat thinks ATR teachers may need retraining, because they may be certified in subjects that aren't that popular. In fairness, there's a lot of that going around. I heard somewhere there were journalists who presented and published features on subjects about which they know little or nothing. Of course, I didn't bother speaking to any journalists before coming to this conclusion, because why bother? Chalkbeat wouldn't.

For the record, I am in total agreement with my friends at the ICE blog, who suggest the aim of the ceaseless and baseless attacks on the ATR is to bust union. A lot of people don't know it, but we are all ATRs. Just be in the wrong place at the right time, and it could be you.

Reformy Chalkbeat Deems Paying Teachers Inconvenient

Who'd have thought that Chalkbeat NY, after taking all that money from Gates and the Walmart family, would suddenly go all community service on us? Evidently, it's not convenient for principals to pay teacher salaries. You know, they're expensive, and that money could go to all sorts of things, not the least of which is stocking the principal's office with free donuts and prostitutes. After all, that principal's job is stressful, what with all those pushy teachers demanding money and stuff.

And hey, isn't teaching a calling? Shouldn't teachers be begging for the right to do this job? After all, it's for the children. Shouldn't teachers be role models, waking up at 4 AM to clean stables, working nights at the car wash, and doing the whole teaching thing just because they're dedicated? Won't they then inspire children to also work for free so that Walmart, which funds Chalkbeat, can also stop having to pay people when they work? Can't the punters see how this will maximize profit?

I just adore the photo Chalkbeat chooses to recycle, the one of a dozen people organized by the well-financed so-called Families for Excellent Schools standing around stereotyping ATR teachers. It would take me about five minutes to organize a dozen people to stand outside the Chalkbeat office with signs that say "Chalkbeat Sucks." I wonder if I could get papers to cover that. Probably not, because oddly enough, papers don't seem to find crappy reporting a problem.

For example, I've been reading the same story for weeks--ATR teachers suck, and they are a big drain on the budget. Why should we pay them if they aren't working full-time? Also, if they are appointed to work full-time, that sucks because they suck. Why? Well, some of them have been charged with this or that, and they therefore must be guilty, even if the process says they were not. Also, the people who haven't been charged are all guilty too, for no reason whatsoever, and therefore they also suck.

Scott Conti, some principal somewhere, is quoted saying schools might not want them and that they will cost more in the future. You know, salaries go up, and those unreasonable teachers still want to get paid, and are unwilling to work for free. I suggest that Scott Conti work for free, and lead by example. Let him wake up and clean stables and work the car wash at night. Or maybe he could get a squeegee and stand around a bridge with a rag. You know, he could set an example of good old American ingenuity.

I'm also disappointed in UFT leadership, which seems to believe that, even with the idiotic so-called Fair Student Funding, that there will be no issue hiring senior teachers. In fact, schools themselves now have to pay teachers out of their own budgets. Why would a principal hire a 100K teacher when a 50K teacher would do? After all, who values experience anymore? You could stock your whole building with newbies and turn them over every three years before they get tenure and start speaking up.

And hey, if you do get stuck hiring ATRs, why not harrass them until they leave?

At the very least, one Bronx principal said, he’d be wary of the hire. “If someone automatically puts an ATR into my school,” he said, “I would go in there and observe them quite a bit.” 

Isn't it cool how the principal knows what he's doing and therefore chooses not to be identified? And isn't it cool how Chalkbeat just goes along with it? But wait, they've saved the biggest whopper for last:

City education officials said it isn’t so easy to rig an evaluation since it relies on a “well-defined rubric based on evidence.”  

Oh yeah, the Danielson rubric is absolutely infallible. If it says this, then that's what principals will do. In fact, the only time Danielson rubric doesn't work is when, you know, principals report things that didn't happen and fail to see things that did. I saw video evidence of a rigged observation where a supervisor failed to see things that happened and distorted things that did. Yet the city cannot imagine such a thing.

Over at Banana Kelly the principal didn't even bother to show up to classes before writing observations. She got caught but how many did not? And if I saw video evidence of some Boy Wonder supervisor rating things that didn't happen, how many times could that supervisor have done it when it wasn't filmed?  And how many times is that replicated citywide?

You won't learn that reading Chalkbeat. Chalkbeat couldn't be bothered to interview a single working teacher, let alone one of the ATRs about whom they are ostensibly writing.

Great work, Chalkbeat! Orwell would be impressed.