Christie, Cuomo, and Teachers

I don't read Jersey Jazzman's blog as often as I should. He's got very sharp analysis of all things Jersey, and often goes beyond. He's gone in depth over the massive failures of merit pay, and the fact that politicians continue to believe in it, rely on it, and impose it despite a 100-year history of abject failure. His most recent blog is on Chris Christie's public criticism of a system he himself negotiated and passed. This is, in fact, exactly what Andrew Cuomo did, before revamping it to make it even worse.

In New Jersey, there is a case of a teacher who was late 111 times over a two-year period. His case was brought to an arbitrator, and the teacher wasn't fired. Now I'll go on record, as did JJ, to say that if you're supposed to be in at a certain time, or course you should be in at that time. And I'll also agree that 111 latenesses over two years is pretty outrageous. That's why it's got such attention-grabbing potential on Twitter.

The power of tenure: New Jersey teacher who was late for work 111 times keeps job http://t.co/MIPG8IERSi via @YahooNews

— Errol Louis (@errollouis) August 27, 2015

Wow, those teachers can get away with anything, huh? It's awful. Who needs any further detail before we pass judgment? Does it matter that most of the latenesses were only two minutes, or that he had to actually stand on a line to clock in every morning? What if, as I read in an ensuing interview, he never missed a moment of class? Does it matter that he was, in fact, rather severely penalized? He will be on unpaid leave until January. Could you afford to be without income or medical benefits for half a year?

In any case, as JJ points out, it was the arbitrator's call. As sad as it is, Christie sometimes has to follow the rules he helps make. I mean, it's tough to do that, just like it's tough to have to pay the state portion of the pension. After all, wouldn't that money be better used in the form of tax breaks for Christie's wealthy BFFs? But I digress.

The thing that I found most egregious about the clarion calls against tenure was that it took one flashy case, and painted all of us with it. For example, I was not late 111 times over the last two years, yet my tenure is being condemned on the basis of one person who was. That, dear readers, is what is known as a stereotype. For example, I'm kind of upset with Iowans this week, as they have an undue influence on who becomes President. If I find one Iowan drunk on the street, shall I condemn them all as a bunch of drunks? If one of them is cheap, or dumb, or promiscuous, or crazy, shall I do the same?

That particular paintbrush is indispensable in the bigot's tool kit. I won't rehash ethnic stereotypes, but they're all based on the same old thing. I grew up with stereotypes. I didn't much like them when I was a kid, but I understand them a lot better now. My job entails dealing with kids from every corner of the earth. Few things upset me as much as one kid refusing to cooperate with another, because she comes from here or there, because she's this or that religion or color, because her accent is harder to understand than yours, or whatever. I tell the kids someone hates each and every one of us in this room just because of who we are.

I have patience for children. Bigotry has considerably less charm when it comes from adults. Adults are supposed to know better. I'm sorry, Chris Christie, that when you make agreements even you have to follow them. I realize how inconvenient that is. But I won't label all governors juvenile crybabies simply because it applies to you and Governor Cuomo. Because that would be a stereotype, and stereotypes are the refuge of the small-minded.

It's pathetic when politicians have to resort to such nonsense. You'd think, by 2015, we'd be past that. Sadly we're far from it.

What Do Mulgrew and Christie Have in Common?

Chris Christie says it's time to punch teacher unions in the face. This isn't surprising coming from the bombastic lunatic he is. This is a guy who makes agreements to fund pensions in exchange for higher contributions from state employees, and then turns around and says, "Screw you, I'm not paying." This is a guy who shouts down young teachers in public. This is a man who will take a state helicopter to watch his son play in a little league game. And I don't suppose we need to discuss the Fort Lee traffic issues any further.

We know that Christie means us no good. We know he has no regard for public education, and that he has contempt for public school teachers. We know he thinks we only work part time and are therefore overpaid. So it's not very tough to oppose Chris Christie, or indeed any and all of his fellow GOP contenders for President.

What's really striking here is that Christie appears to have taken a cue from none other than UFT President Michael Mulgrew, who suggested that people who tried to take his precious Common Core would get their faces punched and pushed in the dirt. It's incredible to be able to draw a parallel between someone who clearly hates us and everything we stand for and someone whose job entails representing our interests, but there you are.

Sometimes, it's good to be angry. For example, when we went five long years without a contract, a lot of teachers were pissed off, and justifiably so. A rep from UFT came to my school a few years ago when we were hanging tough on teacher evaluation. I was very supportive of that. I believe I upped my contribution to COPE to show my approval. A member asked when we were gonna get the raise that the cops and firefighters got. The UFT rep said union leadership was very smart, a line I often hear at the DA. He said that Bloomberg could not get the new evaluation system until he negotiated a contract, and that the member would get the contract.

Shortly thereafter, the smart leadership agreed to an APPR system without a contract, and if I recall correctly it was to help ensure NY State got Race to the Top money. This money went toward things that were of no assistance whatsoever to NY teachers and students, but for some reason we supported it. Not only did we fail to negotiate an APPR system, but we placed our faith in Reformy John King as an impartial arbiter. Anyone who's followed the King's career, one year teaching public school, two years charter, then running a charter school to running NY State education, knows he's just about as impartial as Bill Gates or the Walmart family.

So what's the point? Is Mulgrew just like Christie simply because they both wish to punch us in the face? No.

The point is this--no one should be talking about punching teachers in the face. It's a little more outrageous when it comes from the President of the largest teacher local in these United States, but it's absolutely unacceptable from everyone.

And while it's clearly necessary to fight demagogues like Christie, we ought never to have to be threatened by our union leaders. It is their very job to support us, not the nonsensical corporate programs foisted upon us by the likes of Christie's BFFs.

Wayne Barrett Is Shocked, Shocked

It's important to Wayne Barrett that you know he is progressive.

I am a progressive, 

How can you argue with that? After all, that's clear. You are, therefore, supposed to take his argument against union that much more seriously. But that's not all:

...have been one since the 1960s, when I became a New York City public school teacher for a few years and learned that my union, the United Federation of Teachers, was much better at representing my interests than those of the kids I taught. It shouldn't have come as such a surprise.

Wait a minute. Is Barrett stating that the United Federation of Teachers represents the interests of (gasp!) teachers? Now I'm shocked too! But what Barrett also does here is advance the meme that the interests of teachers are counter to those of students. Why aren't we out rallying for more work for less pay? After all, isn't that what the children of America need?

Despite Barrett's boast of how amazingly progressive he is, teacher v. student is precisely the argument you'll hear from Michelle Rhee, Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, Bill Gates, Chris Christie, and virtually all other supporters of corporate reform. Are we to determine, then, that there is no possibility they could be wrong? That appears to be the conclusion. Were Barrett to oppose abortion, gay rights, or a woman's right to choose, I can only suppose there'd be universal opposition to those issues as well. Barrett continues:

Seen through a progressive lens, all that should matter in these school skirmishes is whether a charter, a contract or an employment rule benefits students. Whenever progressive Democrats instead choose teacher power over the futures of minority kids, they are putting a big bucks lobby ahead of a core but comparatively powerless constituency.

It's pretty remarkable that Barrett forgets all the money billionaires Gates, Broad, and the Walmart family have invested in charters. Does he seriously expect us to entertain the outlandish notion that they are powerless? Does he expect us not to realize all the power and money they put behind charters? Does Barrett expect us to ignore the fact that their money dwarfs that of unions, or that Gates' has basically imposed his agenda on the nation, with the full cooperation of President Barack Obama?

Does he expect we don't know the attrition rates of charters? For example, the fabled Eva Moskowitz Academy just graduated its first class. Over half of its students not only disappeared, but were not even replaced. Are we to ignore that, as uber-progressive Barrett did?

You may, for example, have gotten the impression, when the WFP appeared poised last month to nominate charter foe Diane Ravitch to oppose Gov. Cuomo, a charter champion, in his reelection bid, that these nonprofit-run public schools are a Republican hedge-fund conspiracy. That's what the WFP, a sometimes-blunt instrument exploited by the interests that bankroll it, and 75-year-old Ravitch, the adopted guru of the UFT and de Blasio administration, would have us believe.

I wonder why Ravitch's age is of any relevance to Barrett's argument. Nonetheless, it's one of the most preposterous arguments I've ever seen, particularly if Barrett is as progressive as he claims. There's no evidence whatsoever that Ravitch was poised to win the nomination, and if that's not clear to you, you can ask Zephyr Teachout. Teachout lost the nomination, and it's pretty clear the teacher union did not support her.

As if that's not enough, the fact is the UFT, far from labeling them a "Republican hedge-fund conspiracy" not only supports charter schools, but has opened and co-sponsored them. AFT made Bill Gates the keynote at its convention. UFT and Ravitch differ on not only issues like charters, but also mayoral control, Common Core, and VAM ratings, all of which UFT has supported and Ravitch has opposed.

It's remarkable that someone as "progressive" as Barrett fails to comprehend the corporate influence on the modern Democratic party.

Even Zephyr Teachout, the Fordham professor who ran unsuccessfully against Cuomo for the WFP designation after Ravitch dropped out and now plans to challenge him in a Democratic primary partly because of his "support of corporate school reform," is the protégé of new charter school backer Howard Dean.

This is classic guilt by association. Barrett, despite acknowledging her opposition to Cuomo's corporate reform, sees fit to extrapolate Teachout's positions from those with whom she's acquainted rather than her actual words criticizing Cuomo's education positions or the obvious act of her opposing him.

Aside from the pyrotechnics involved in constructing Barrett's arguments, it's pretty disappointing that the self-styled progressive appears to oppose higher wages for those of us who, unlike him, have chosen to continue to educate all of New York's children, whether or not they meet the selective standards of Eva Moskowitz. I'd say one bottom line for anyone progressive is supporting working people. And lest Barrett shed further crocodile tears for the children he sees as well-served by charters, they will grow up and need jobs too.

It's my hope that we can offer our children something better than what Walmart has spent millions and millions creating for them. And like many of my colleagues, I'm poised to support real progressives to counter the Walmart message.

That Wacky Funster from New Jersey

Governor Chris Christie, though not a teacher by trade, has real class. You can tell, because he's brought his ALEC-inspired war on teachers straight to the classroom. It's one thing to attack teachers. That's pretty common, and has become pretty much as standard as no. 2 pencils. However, His Governorship has taken things a step further:

"There’s a lot of really great teachers in the state," said Christie. "But their union cares more about how much they get paid than they care about how well you learn."

That's why Jersey schools are short of supplies, according to Christie. It's so inconvenient for him to provide teachers with salaries that the only way he can make up for it is by pulling supplies from schools. After all, Christie long ago made sure taxes on the rich were cut, and that cost around a billion dollars. Yet those greedy teachers still won't agree to work gratis. Where is Governor Christie going to get funds to helicopter to his son's baseball games?

Christie, of course, is always concerned with the taxpayer. That's why he killed the tunnel that was supposed to run from Jersey to New York. It turns out that he just lied about the whole darn thing, and now there's no tunnel, and it appears he deprived his state of it just to advance his up-and-coming political career.  President Christie. Emperor Christie. Whatever it takes.

Still, teachers have to be careful what they say to students. It's kind of incredible the governor is not subject to such standards. This particular governor has no problem spouting outright falsehoods to his state, no matter what the cost.

So lying to a bunch of teenagers, for him, is like stealing candy from a baby. And that's precisely what I expect to see Chris Chistie do next.