PROSE and Its Mysteries

Politico just did a feature on the PROSE schools. After reading it I have no idea why they are an improvement over the SBO feature of the standard contract, which allows schools to change class time, rearrange schedules, and basically do whatever they need to achieve their unique goals. I also see no advantage whatsoever in allowing the program not to sunset at year's end. What if it turns out to be a disaster?

I can only suppose it's an effort to compete with charters in doing things differently. Unsurprisingly, those representing charters decline to sing its praises: 

The program has been largely dismissed by the city’s influential charter sector; its leaders call it an unproven strategy that has not yet shown tangible improvements for schools.

Of course, "tangible improvements" are open to interpretation. Last I looked, charters had not only failed to show them, but in NYC were also not subject to Chancellor's Regulations that prohibit, for example, allowing children to pee themselves rather than granting the fundamental dignity of allowing them to go to the bathroom.

A Daily News story from last year has some less than encouraging words on the PROSE program, from none other than sitting Chancellor Carmen Fariña:

“You see something here that in some other schools would raise people's eyebrows,” she said. “You have one teacher with almost 40 kids in the class and you have another teacher with eight kids in the class. And no one is saying this is how many I have, this is how many you have. They're saying in order for me to do my job here, you're gonna do your job there.”

I'm not sure when it was that Carmen Fariña last worked as a classroom teacher, but I still do, and I also represent over 200 working teachers. I can tell you with 100% certainly there are a whole lot of things teachers don't tell their immediate supervisors or principals. The likelihood they would tell such things to the school chancellor hovers somewhere below nil.

So we have 48 kids. Eight of them, according to someone or other, require individualized attention. 40 of them evidently do not. In this scenario, over 80% of the students are in an oversized class and we're supposed to celebrate that because the teachers, as far as Fariña knows, aren't complaining. That's not the most persuasive argument I've ever heard. Why couldn't there be two classes of 24 without the PROSE initiative? In fact, if she feels so strongly about it, why doesn't Fariña ante up so all those kids could work in groups of 8?

In fact, an SBO could be used to enable an oversized class. We had a strings class in our school that was one over the limit, and we had an SBO to allow it to stay that way throughout the year. In exchange, the teacher was relieved from his C6 assignment, repairing instruments. Admin agreed not to overbook the class in the future, and it seemed a better decision than removing a kid at that point in the year. The teacher even did his C6 assignment, as no one else was gonna do it if he didn't.

If the PROSE programs are so fantastic and innovative, why are oversized classes their calling card? How about letting us see, now, each and every program so we can assess them? How about letting us know why these things could not be achieved via a regular SBO process?

Are these programs just a propaganda tool to show that public schools can do new things just like charters? For my money, that's nothing worth aspiring to in the first place. Also, the UFT has already kowtowed sufficiently to charters. Not only did we drag the trash talking Steve Barr and Green Dot to NYC,  but we also opened and colocated our own charter. Just how far backward do we need to bend in order to prove a point?

If it's about showing we are flexible with the contract, I absolutely don't believe the contract favors us. In fact since 2005, I've seen it favor us less and less. This notwithstanding, it happens to be constructed by both the union and the city. I've seen it work in favor of UFT members, and I've seen it work in favor of administration. I don't think we need to hold it in contempt, and show our enemies we're willing to push it aside to show how open-minded we are.

If there is some great value in the PROSE schools, I'd like to hear about it. What exactly is it they can do that a general SBO cannot?  Why are they better than the UFT Contact, and if they're so wonderful why isn't everyone using them? When are we going to see exactly what goes on in these schools rather than vague allusions in Politico?

If they are as good as Mulgrew and Fariña say they are, they have nothing to lose by showing us the full picture.

The Magic Formula

Sue Edelman has a piece in the Post about how several schools have avoided takeover. Evidently whether or not a school gets taken over entails graduation rates, Regents passing rates, and whether or not you are in the bottom 5% of schools. So these schools dodged a bullet, but the article suggests they are still not doing that well.

I wonder what the difference is between a school in the bottom 5%, which appears to be bad, and the bottom 6%, which somehow is not. What makes schools only in the bottom 7% so much better? I can't really say, but I guess if you live by the numbers, you die by the numbers.

When you reaize that test scores pretty much all coincide with income or lack thereof, you might determine we should simply close all schools that poor people attend. Under that model, which is pretty much status quo anyway, we could judge the students by income. For example, we could find out how many students qualified for free lunch and simply expel them. That'll get those test scores up in a hurry.

Of course the solution to so-called failing schools, according to Governor Cuomo, is to place them under receivership. Let the state run them. That's worked out fabulously in Roosevelt New York, just a few miles north of my home in Freeport. A young woman who took my blood pressure at a doctor's office went there, and told me many stories of what the high school was like under state control. I'm surprised my blood pressure didn't spike right then and there.

Now the state does not necessarily have to take over these schools with high percentages of poor people. Perhaps we could let Eva Moskowitz in to work her magic. Of course, a lot of charters have not done so well under that particular paradigm. Locke High School was taken over by Green Dot, Randi Weingarten's favorite charter chain (UFT partnered with them to bring them to NYC), and they didn't fare all that well.

But the important thing is to take these schools away from their communities, which are too poor to have or run their own schools. And once we get rid of that bottom 5%, there'll be another bottom 5% to worry about. Maybe if we keep attacking public schools 5% at a time, eventually there'll be so few left that the hedge funders will be able to drown union in a bathtub or something. That's something folks like Broad, Gates, and the Walmart heirs have wet dreams about.

Until and unless we attack poverty, like Finland did, there are going to be a whole lot of schools our insane system deems failing on the basis of tests that may or may not measure what's important.

It's too bad we've been vilified and libeled so widely and for so long. I'm no genius, but I can write tests for my kids a whole lot better than the companies getting paid millions to assess them.

UFT Leadership Sends Us Charter Ad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lie Down with Dogs...

...and wake up with fleas. That's what we're getting as a result of our partnership with Steve Barr. Barr is affiliated with some ex-Green Dot school that rose up as a partnership with the UFT. He boasts of being a union school with a 30-page contract, and sets that forward as an example.

Here's what he didn't mention in his piece--Green Dot Schools have neither tenure nor seniority rights. Layoffs are done by virtue of perceived merit of said teachers. How many times have they fetched the principal's dry-cleaning? Who did the dogsitting for the AP when she took that fact-finding tour to Bermuda? Who brought the biggest cake to the principal's 50th birthday party? Did that person forget to come?

These and other questions could be considered with a thin contract. And when you don't have due process, there's no hearing to prove you're actually incompetent. I understand there is some "just cause" process over there, but when I asked various UFT reps whether or not it's ever saved a teacher position, no one was able to tell me. A prominent reformy friend of mine told me they never had to use the process and were generally able to "counsel out" anyone they didn't care for. I find it likely Green Dot, or whatever they're calling themselves, can fire teachers "just cause" it tickles their fancy.

So now, with a new progressive mayor, Barr is in the Daily News urging a new contract "compromise." Essentially, he wants to use his contract as a model for the city. Let's assume everything he says about his school is true, though I don't trust him for a New York minute. Does his charter take absolutely everyone? Are the ESL students abject beginners, or fairly advanced? Do they have as many high-needs students as neighborhood schools? And when they talk special education, do they have the same sort of kids public schools do? Have they got alternate assessment kids?

Clearly they don't have alternate assessment students if Barr claims a 100% graduation rate. Alternate assessment students are not on a path for diplomas.

Barr is a big mover and shaker in the "parent trigger" movement, the one represnted in the reformy box-office stinker Won't Back Down.. He took over Locke High School in LA, based on a faculty vote, then, by way of saying thank you, fired 70% of them. As a thank you for the UFT partnership, he's now saying we have to take ideas from both sides, but proposing only the same reformy nonsense we've been getting from Bloomberg for over a decade.

Barr says you can't argue with Bloomberg's "achievements." On that, he's dead wrong. Plenty of people argue with Bloomberg's achievements and that's precisely why Quinn and Lhota went down in flames. People in New York want to revisit democracy. They're sick and tired of the autocratic nonsense trickling down from the diminutive billionaire who makes the rules. They're sick and tired of a fake school board where the mayor holds the majority of votes.

If Bill de Blasio wants to be a successful mayor, he'll ignore the newspaper editorials and Steve Barrs urging him to maintain the status quo. He'll work with the union rather than vilifying us in the press. He'll keep his promises and back away from the school closings that devastate neighborhoods.

And if the UFT wants to be successful it will start standing up for teachers and our students rather than partnering with disingenuous demagogues who will stab us in the back at the earliest opportunity.

A Lesson for Joe Nocerra

There are a lot of things you can do if you don't wish to investigate a situation beyond whatever you hear on the news. You could continue watching your TV and believe whatever it told you. You could join a cult, perhaps. Of course, a far more desirable option is to get a column with the New York Times, the paper of record, and spout whatever gibberish happened to catch your fancy.

To Joe Nocerra, Steven Brill's book is revelatory, Never mind that it's largely billionaire-sponsored nonsense. The important thing, as Mr. Nocerra sees it, is that Brill's goals can be easily achieved by courting former part-time UFT President Randi Weingarten.

I don't doubt he's correct. After all, Ms. Weingarten decided to make Bill Gates the keynote speaker at the AFT convention. Can you imagine the conversation that led to that?

Weingarten: I have a great idea. Let's have Bill Gates be the keynote speaker at the AFT convention.

Toadie #1: Love it, RW!

Toadie #2: I love it more, RW!

Toadie #3: You are a genius, RW!

Weingarten: The motion is passed.

The spectacle of those who disapproved being ridiculed at the podium by Weingarten was an absolute disgrace. And Gates thanked her and the AFT by attacking teacher pensions the following week. If I'm not mistaken, he soon came out for higher class sizes, echoed by Arne Duncan.

More recently, Weingarten actually hosted a party for anti-union, anti-teacher Steven Brill. I'm proud not to have made the invitation list. Brill suggests in his book that Weingarten should be chancellor. No doubt he's thrilled about the piece of crap contract she managed to shove down the throats of UFT members in 2005. Thanks to that contract, 1200 teachers are running all over the city like gypsies, week to week, place to place. I met one today who cried to me. I've had ATRs email me, for years now, of the discouragement and depression this placement has caused them. One wrote that she was moved to resign, no doubt a big victory for folks like Bloomberg, Gates and Brill.

Joe Nocerra knows little or nothing about what really goes on in schools. He knows, like Rod Paige before him, that Randi Weingarten never met a giveback she didn't like. He knows that she's a new kind of union leader, the kind that doesn't worry about getting more money or better working conditions. Unfortunately, what America needs is not worse conditions for teachers, but better conditions for everyone.

And while I don't expect someone as incurious and sloppy as Mr. Nocerra to bother reading Diane Ravitch, or any reality-based education writers (Nocerra prefers to call anyone opposing "reforms" status quo, and to quote blatantly stereotypical nonsense from KIPP, another outfit he can't be bothered researching.), there is something for the UFT to learn here.

In a nutshell, appeasement doesn't work. Gates thanked Weingarten by stabbing her in the back, and Brill, who trades in pushing a billionaire point of view, is hardly likely to help working people. After the 2005 contract, the tabloids praised the UFT for about five minutes before going back to trashing us for our cushy jobs and lavish lifestyles.

There is no point in giving these people anything, They are parasites. They claim to put "Children First, Always," but cut their budgets, overcrowd their schools and overload their classes without a second thought, They allow ten percent of their teachers to disappear by attrition and take responsibility for nothing. They allow schools to close, because they "failed," but the failure is never, ever attributable to them. And the abundance of high-needs kids in those schools, the ones who either don't make the charters or are "counseled out," are sheer coincidence.

Never sell out the ATRs. Don't give them an evaluation system they can manipulate, just as they've manipulated the one in the "transformation schools."  Don't do anything, ever, to get the fleeting approval of the NY Post editorial board.

I don't have high hopes for Nocerra. But if we don't learn, we may as well pack in the union, sign ridiculous contracts like the one at Green Dot, and give up altogether.

From the Folks Who Brought You Green Dot Schools

There's now a push for a parent trigger law in New York. This law was passed in California in an effort to turn an elementary school into a charter.

The Parent Trigger was conceived by a group called Parent Revolution, formerly known as the Los Angeles Parents Union. It's no secret that the organization was founded by the Green Dot charter school chain, though occasionally there's a halfhearted effort to portray Parent Revolution as a “grassroots” parents' group.

And State Senator Gloria Romero, who sponsored the legislation in California, scored herself a nice gig with Democrats for Education Reform, after voters rejected her bid to become Superintendent of Public Instruction. It must be great to take all that "reform" money and run around creating even more faux-grassroots organizations, like "Educators4Excellence."

I've long found Green Dot and its outspoken founder to be obnoxious and disingenuous. Steve Barr claims teachers drop tenure to work for him, the Green Dot website proclaims its teachers have neither tenure nor seniority rights, yet I've repeatedly seen UFT sources state that its teachers had "just cause" protection. A prominent "reform" voice once told me that GD teachers were "counseled out" when there were problems. I've repeatedly asked union sources and journalists how many GD teachers went through its "just cause" process, and how many teacher jobs were preserved as a result. I've never gotten an answer.

The UFT is partners with a Green Dot school, and while it may have precluded Barr taking over a city school, as he did in LA, it's hard to see how this organization advances the interests of working people (you know, the kind our kids grow up to become). This parent trigger thing just looks like one more "reform" effort to close and privatize even more schools.

This does not help us or our kids (though I never deluded myself Green Dot had any such goal to begin with). Nonetheless, this is one heck of a thank you for our union bringing them to the Big Apple.

Now With Only Half the Crap!

Incredibly, that's pretty much the line UFT central has been using to promote their latest evaluation deal.  Only 20% of your evaluation will be determined by standardized tests, using an unproven and highly questionable technique called "value added."  (Another 20% will be rated using local tests, portfolios, or some other thing.)  This is a good thing, they say, because it could be 50%.  In fact, that's what it is in Colorado, and AFT President Randi Weingarten supported the bill that enabled it.

And that's not all the venerable Ms. Weingarten enabled in Colorado:

Under the legislation, which garnered bipartisan support, teachers would be evaluated every year and students' academic progress would count for half the instructors' overall rating. Elementary- and high-school teachers would need three consecutive years of positive evaluations to earn tenure, which guarantees them an appeals process before they can be fired. 

Educators rated "ineffective" two years in a row would be stripped of tenure protection and revert to probationary status. They could earn back job protection after three straight years of satisfactory evaluations.

UFT teachers already work without tenure protection in the Green Dot charter school, among others.   With an openness to agreements like these, tenure could come to mean little or nothing to public school teachers as well.  The Unity/ New Action coalition that brought us leaders like Ms. Weingarten has now given us President Michael Mulgrew, who opted to negotiate this deal in secret and have the UFT Delegate Assembly rubber-stamp it for him.

The argument I've been hearing, incredibly, is it could have been twice as crappy as it was.  The truth is, while the agreement may indeed contain half the crap, or even less, crap is not on the short list of what today's teachers need most.  I know, because not a single teacher has told me so, and I talk to teachers all the time.

Perhaps union presidents should consider doing the same.

Thanks to Fred Klonsky

It's All About the Children

The Wall Street Journal is again promoting the myth that teacher unions hinder children. Apparently, the union forced KIPP to pay its teachers 33% more than public school teachers, just because they have a union contract! And KIPP, out of the goodness of its corporate heart, already pays them 18% more! But the Journal forgot to mention that the teachers work 33% more time. Probably an oversight. A clever blogger suggests a solution--have them work a "professional day" like Green Dot NY--then they can work as much as the bosses wish without any compensation at all!

Not only that, but those awful unions are keeping parents from hiring non-unionized paraprofessionals simply because they're getting paid 12 rather than 24 dollars an hour (aside from receiving no benefits and not being fingerprinted for criminal records).

Don't these horrible unions know that it's absolutely necessary to provide jobs with long hours and little compensation? That way we can be sure our children will get jobs like that when they grow up. And what parent doesn't want their kids to work endless hours for little pay and few benefits?

On behalf of kids everywhere, thanks, Wall Street Journal.

The Grand Tradition

In yet another shallow and superficial article, the New York Times maintains its standard as the paper that asks the fewest questions and holds the least curiosity about education. It manages to ask the obvious questions about unionization in charter schools, but doesn't bother to examine what actually happens when charters unionize.

The Times asks Steve Barr about unions, but fails to distinguish between the Green Dot version of union and real unions. The fact that Barr's teachers have neither tenure nor seniority rights is not mentioned. In fact there's no indication the writer even knows about it.

Of course, it may be true that unions sometimes hold back charters. After all, they recently made KIPP actually pay its teachers for the extra time they spent working. Charters see such demands as unpatriotic, as they provide "more work for less pay," which they see as a key American value. They teach their kids to work hard and be nice. That way, after having gone to school 200 hours a week, they can grow up and work 200 hours a week without complaint.

Fortunately for KIPP, charter teachers have very few rights, even when they're unionized. Without seniority rights, for example, charters can still get rid of pretty much any teacher uppity enough to make inconvenient demands, union or not. Of course, if unions are ever run by someone other than part-time AFT President Randi Weingarten, charter school unions may demand real rights, and that will be a huge inconvenience for management.

Fortunately, they've got some employees who would never stand for that:

“Every meeting I went to,” Ms. Furr said, “it was always ‘What can we get?’ and never ‘How is this going to make our students’ education better?’ ”

There is a widespread view, advanced by charter school moguls and "education experts," that it's evil for teachers to look after themselves. Apparently Ms. Furr subscribes to that point of view. She's bought into it so thoroughly that she fails to understand what a union is. In fact, it's the job of the union to protect and improve her working conditions. Here's the secret--making her students' education better is Ms. Furr's job, not the union's. That, in fact, is why her employer is supposed to give her money. Of course, this is America, If Ms. Furr doesn't want money, she's certainly free to donate it back to the charter school.

The Times, however, bemoans the workload of charter teachers. In fact, it mentions the rough conditions charter school teachers have:

...the workload, teaching 160 kids a day, it wasn’t sustainable. You can’t put out the kind of energy we were putting out for our kids year after year.”

That sounds rough. However, New York City public school teachers teach 170 kids a day, and then do "small group tutoring" after that. It's odd the Times reporter didn't know that. Of course, to discover things like that, a reporter might have to speak to a New York City teacher, and they are typically found in school buildings. Such buildings could be blocks and blocks away from New York Times offices.

Who wants to walk that far? Not New York Times reporters.

Ms. Weingarten Loves Mr. Bloomberg

It's a match made in heaven, but oh, the drama of these love triangles. Even as union-basher Rod Paige still smolders with pure love for part-time UFT President Randi Weingarten, Mayor Mike's charisma is more than she can resist. That's why Ms. Weingarten is declaring mayoral control is something we can all get behind.

After all, without mayoral control, how could we have closed all those schools, condemning hundreds of teachers to the ATR brigades to wander for years searching for a teaching job? How else could we have negotiated a contract that won us August punishment days, perpetual hall patrol, 90-day unpaid suspensions based on unsubstantiated allegations, and best of all, an explosion of people in rubber rooms for no particular reason?

It's Spring, the birds are singing, and all is good with the world. And just in case anyone doubts Ms. Weingarten's sincerity, the ultra-right wing, anti-teacher, anti-labor New York Post is singing her praises. "Right On Randi!" they declare.

That's because the New York Post is sick and tired of union leaders that run around asking for more money and better working conditions for its members. It's about time we got a union leader who supported a mayor with an agenda that includes undermining public education with school closings and charter schools that invariably get preferential treatment. How often do you get a union leader willing to partner up with a chain like Green Dot, that offers teachers neither tenure nor seniority privileges?

Only the visionary Ms. Weingarten would do something like that. And Ms. Weingarten is probably the only part-time union leader even The New York Post could love.

Thanks to Schoolgal

Related: Accountable Talk

Beware of Charter Moguls Bearing Pizza

The New Yorker doesn't provide online access to its Green Dot article, but Susan Ohanian provides us with a few highlights. And they are indeed revealing. I didn't know, for example, that after Steve Barr served a few pizzas and persuaded the teachers at Locke High School to become a Green Dot school, he made them all reapply for their jobs. He then hired only 30% of the faculty back. This is the guy part-time UFT President Randi Weingarten saw fit to go into business with.

Barr's Green Dot is unionized, at least technically. Like us, its teachers are forbidden to strike. Unlike us, however, they don't have tenure or seniority rights. What they pay union dues for is a mystery to me.

Barr runs the only large charter organization in the country that has embraced unionized teachers and a collectively bargained contract--an unnecessary hassle, if his aim was to run a few schools, but a source of leverage for Green Dot's main purpose, which is to push for citywide change. "I don't see how you tip a system with a hundred per cent unionized labor without unionized labor," he said.

Note the use of language here--collective bargaining is "an unnecessary hassle." Barr is not out to embrace unionism, but to use it, in order to place his imprint on the "system." And under Barr's "embrace" of unionism, 70% of Locke's teachers are now working at Dunkin Donuts, hardly the sort of change working Americans need nowadays.

"You seem to have cracked the code," (US Secretary of Education Arne) Duncan told Barr.

He seems to have done that, which is why Mr. Duncan wishes to replicate Barr's faux-union schools on a national level. And Duncan's got big ideas:

Duncan asked Barr what it would take to break up and remake thousands of large failing schools. "One, you have to reconstitute," Barr told him--that is, fire everyone and make them reapply or transfer elsewhere in the district. "Arne didn't seem to flinch at that," he said. "Second, if we can figure out a national union partnership, we can take away some of the opposition." Duncan asked Barr if he could persuade Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers to support the idea. I'd love to do that," she told Barr, but she also expressed concerns. "She said, 'I can't be seen as coming in and firing all these teachers.'" So they talked about alternatives, like transferring teachers or using stimulus money for buyouts.

Note that Barr's priority, like that of all the "reformers," is firing teachers. That's step one. More disturbing than Barr, though, is the reaction of Randi Weingarten--she can't be seen as coming in and firing all these teachers. Perception is everything, and Ms. Weingarten raises no direct objection to firing teachers. She's preoccupied solely with her image.

Steve Barr's not the only one wheeling horses into the neighborhood.

Thanks to Norm

Target Practice

I've been following education news for years now. I'm consistently amazed at how teachers are such a convenient scapegoat. The same people who make sure city kids are taught in oversized classes in trailers and bathrooms and hallways are all over the press, crying about the terrible things teachers are doing. It's an easy sell, too, if you don't look at the whole picture, which not even the President bothers to do.

If AIG weren't so prominently in the news, maybe we'd be the ones ducking the press. One difference, of course, is AIG's leadership at least issues instructions to survive angry mobs. Here in the city, part-time UFT President Randi Weingarten can't wait to get on the anti-labor bandwagon, saying everything but vouchers is on the table. Oddly, she says that in the context of DC schools, where there's already a voucher program. So what is sacrosanct?

Meanwhile, Ms. Weingarten couldn't wait to bring Green Dot to NYC, with its phony union that offers neither tenure nor seniority rights, and its "just cause" provision that, for all I can tell, has never been tested, let alone protected a teacher job. Still, its hapless teachers pay dues, as will their replacements, so honestly, who cares? Plus, the embrace of charters makes Ms. Weingarten a "reformer."

The news media is awash with coverage of charter schools, which cover a very small percentage of real live kids. Protecting or improving public schools is beside the point, and not even Ms. Weingarten, who moonlights as part-time AFT Prez, will stand up and state the obvious.

It's pathetic that the United States, particularly at this point, can persist in the outrageous fiction that unionized working people are responsible for our decline. But if you want an alternate point of view, you'll have to look to those of us dodging the slings and arrows.

You know where to find us. The truth is, though, most people don't.

A Question

Over at Edwize, they've seen fit to post an ad seeking teachers for the Green Dot NY charter. I've posted a few questions, which they may or may not publish. In any case, I'm posting them here.

Hmmm...I have a few questions about this. "Come join the Green Dot New York Charter School and help lead the effort to transform public education to ensure that all children receive the education they need to fulfill their dreams!"

Is this to imply that teachers like me, who work under miserable conditions in overcrowded schools with inadequate facilities, perhaps because valuable resources go to charter schools, are not trying to ensure kids get what kids need to fulfill their dreams?

Wouldn't it be easier if we got the facilities to help them, rather than turning them over to charter schools? Shouldn't our union help us to get those facilities?

Also, Green Dot's website declares its teachers have neither tenure nor seniority rights. Do you think that's a good thing for working teachers? I understand that Edwize has declared their "just cause" provisions are superior to tenure, but it's quite clear Green Dot means to say something else altogether. In fact, Steve Barr declared on Eduwonk that teachers gladly dump tenure to work for him.

In any case, how many times, if ever, has Green Dot's "just cause" provision been tested? If it has, how many teacher positions has it saved? Thanks for your reply. Since you're running this ad on our dues-supported website, it behooves you to let us know what we're getting into.

Thanks in advance for the info.

Of course, I eagerly await their reply.

The UFT Answer Man

Recently the union has begun sending people to my school to keep us informed. They come in the cafeteria and give speeches about things. I usually mind my own business and eat lunch, but the other day one of them started a conversation with me. He made the egregious error of asking if I had any questions, and I asked him the same one I've asked Leo Casey on Edwize, the same question I've asked several NYC education reporters, the question I've posed to various wonks on the net:

"The UFT is now partnering with Green Dot, a charter chain that announces on its website their teachers have neither tenure nor seniority rights. Edwize says because or their "just clause provision their teachers have something better than tenure. How many times has the clause been tested, and how many teacher positions has it saved?"

"When I was in Nebraska," he began.

"What does that have to do with my question?" I asked.

"Well, you have to understand how things work in the middle of the country. Sometimes these teachers sign contracts, they get raises, and then they don't get them the next year."

"But Green Dot started in California, and now we've brought them to New York. What does the middle of the country have to do with my question?"

He smiled and showed me a form. "Would you like to contribute to COPE?" he asked me. "We've done a lot of great things, like 55-25."

"First of all, it's 55-27 for most. And also, we paid for that with all those givebacks in 05."

"No, it's COPE that paid for that."

"But COPE also paid to support Serphin Maltese, who was instrumental in breaking two Catholic school unions."

"Well, yes we did that."

"And you supported Governor Pataki against Carl McCall. Also, you didn't oppose Mayor Bloomberg when he ran for re-election."

"Well, he was going to win."

"And you supported mayoral control, which has been a disaster for teachers and kids."

"Well, you need to support the union." he said.

"The union needs to let high school teachers select their own Academic Vice President, even if it means they may lose. They changed the constitution to take our choice away."

"Yes, but they won that year."

"Who won that year?" I asked.

"Unity." he replied. Perhaps he was a New Action guy. New Action, you may recall, was the party that ran Mike Shulman, who beat the Unity guy. When Unity insisted on a revote, he won again, by a larger margin if I recall correctly. Unity used to vilify them precisely as they now vilify ICE. Then UFT President Randi Weingarten gave all their leaders patronage gigs, and now (surprise!) they support whoever Unity says should be UFT President.

Otherwise, there go their gigs.

"It's unconscionable," I told him.

"You know what your problem is?" he asked me. I love when people offer to tell me what my problem is. Don't you? Isn't it kind when people get ready to offer you constructive advice?

"You think you know everything," he said. He then went on to lecture me about the virtues of working within the system, and how that was the only way to get things done.

Oddly, I hadn't suggested anything about working outside the system. But I'm very familiar with the UFT system. And I know very well what they've been doing since 05.

We'll answer your questions, as long as they're the right ones. Ask the wrong questions and we'll make nonsensical speculations on what you think. Who the hell do you think you are, being well-informed? This is not how we get people to vote for us, and don't even think about telling anyone else what goes on.

Isn't it ironic when you hear Ms. Weingarten complaining about the top-down management style of Mayor Bloomberg? For all I know, he may have learned it entirely from her.

Tenure on the Table

The LA Times is talking tenure again. They're against it, of course, and their poster child for its abolition is Green Dot Schools, which is currently in partnership with the United Federation of Teachers here in New York:

Charter schools have done away with such practices -- and that includes Green Dot Public Schools, whose teachers are unionized -- with no widespread reports of unfair treatment.

In fact, it's hard to determine what entails "unfair treatment" for Green Dot teachers, as they enjoy neither tenure nor seniority, and has only been in existence for eight years. Is Green Dot's handful of "unionized" schools a good enough reason for part-time AFT President Randi Weingarten to begin dealing away tenure to union-buster Michelle Rhee in DC? Her internet mouthpiece, unelected UFT Vice-President Leo Casey, certainly seems to think so. Here's Mr. Casey explaining yet again just how well Green Dot teachers have it:

The standard for dismissal in tenure cases is just cause — the school district has a burden of proof that the teacher either has engaged in some overt act of misconduct or is failing to meet minimum standards of performance. The Green Dot schools have this same standard — from the moment they are hired and not after three years of probation — and an independent arbitrator to hear a case for dismissal.

Mr. Casey, as usual, pointedly ignores Green Dot teachers' lack of seniority. Apparently, we duespayers are supposed to ignore the fact that under this system, a twenty-year veteran can be dismissed before a newbie hired ten minutes ago. Still, though, there's a problem with Mr. Casey's contention. Even when we are good little teachers and ignore the seniority issue, Mr. Casey consistently fails to provide a single example in which this process has been utilized, let alone protected anyone's job.

It appears that we're supposed to trust in the good graces of Steve Barr, who does not hesitate to vilify unionized teachers and union leaders using language that would get tenured teachers fired if they were to be caught using it in class.

It's a disgrace that Mr. Casey takes us for such fools that he'd repeat such claims without answering fundamental questions about them. It's even worse that Ms. Weingarten, without whose approval such claims could not appear on Edwize, is placing the tenure of DC teachers on a table she shares with Michelle Rhee.

Ms. Weingarten has truly earned the reputation she covets as a union leader who embraces "reforms." It's unfortunate that she cares not a whit what it costs you, me, or future generations of American working people.

Thanks to California Teacher Guy

The Mystery Ms. Weingarten Cannot Solve

Leo Casey, noted UFT big shot, has written yet another article about how wonderful Green Dot Schools are, and how privileged we are to have them in the Big Apple. I commented on the piece:

I certainly appreciate your informative posts about Green Dot. I am particularly fascinated by your assertion that Green Dot’s “just cause” provisions are better than tenure, since new hires can take advantage of them.

I’m very interested in how these provisions work. Kindly tell us how many teacher positions this “just cause” provision has saved. Also, how many times has it been used?

Green Dot’s website proclaims its teachers have neither tenure nor seniority rights. Oddly, it neglects to mention that its teachers have protection superior to tenure.

By the way, do you think it benefits working teachers to have no seniority privileges?

Thank you in advance for your response.

Alas, Mr. Casey, despite my gracious thank you, has thus far declined to respond. And here's the response Edwize saw fit to run:

It looks like being caught in an outright misrepresentation on the Green Dot Charter School makes some folks want to change the subject.

This is a misleading and false accusation, much like the one Mr. Casey made when he blamed me for the words of the LA Times editorial board (suggesting teachers throw tenure out the window to join Green Dot). It refers to a piece from the ICE blog, a piece I had nothing whatsoever to do with, which Mr. Casey refers to as "groundless speculation and factual misinformation." The writer refutes this in the comments, but meanwhile, on Edwize, Mr. Casey declines to respond to the membership he is paid to represent.

My question is simple--if Green Dot openly refutes tenure, and the UFT claims they have a system that's better, how does it work in practice? Didn't they check before agreeing to partner with them? I've seen no evidence to suggest this.

I've asked repeatedly, and no one from the union has seen fit to respond.

And there's the other question--Green Dot openly rejects seniority, the UFT has not offered any justification or rationale for that, so do they think it's a good thing? Have they considered it?

It appears they have not.

So I have to ask, if the UFT leadership has not bothered to examine such fundamental questions, if they don't plan, if they don't think things through, how can they deal with someone like Joel Klein, who clearly has his eye on the future?

And if they refuse to respond to serious basic questions from real working teachers, what on earth are we paying them for?

Leo and Me (Corrected)

A recent post on Edwize proclaimed the joy and wonder of a new Green Dot school in New York City. A video of Steve Barr with Randi Weingarten and Joel Klein shows the great happiness they all share in their new endeavor. I posted a question:

I've heard some interesting things about the NYC Green Dot contract. Could you please tell us whether the contract is available online? If it is not, could you please post it?

Now when I first posted this, I mistakenly attributed this post to Leo Casey. Mr. Casey is my representative in the UFT, and he has very important work to do, so I apologize sincerely for my error.

And naturally I'm honored he put up a post today responding to my error. Unless I'm very mistaken, though, Mr. Casey subscribes to the UFT argument that the Green Dot "just cause" provision is better than tenure because there is no probationary period attached.

I myself have serious doubts, since the Green Dot website proudly declares its teachers have neither tenure nor seniority rights. It fails to mention its teachers have something better than tenure. Call me cynical, but that, along with bragging about no tenure suggests you clearly disapprove of it.

And call me worse, but when union muckety-mucks start pooh-poohing tenure, it does not bode well for teachers. And while Mr. Casey's patronage mill has seriously weakened seniority rights, they haven't yet managed to scrap them altogether. So what about that contract? I spoke to a reputable source who not only claimed to have seen it, but that it contained some very odd, and not very teacher-friendly clauses. Here's what Edwize has to say:

As for the Green Dot New York Charter School’s teachers’ contract, the blogosphere will have to wait. Despite popular perception, we believe that the school’s teachers should be central participants in the bargaining process. As they were only hired in June and signed union recognition cards this summer, we’re now able to start negotiations.

So perhaps there is no contract, and perhaps this person was simply making things up. I can't imagine what motivation this person had, but who knows what evils lurk in the hearts of sources? I posted this follow-up:

Thank you for answering my question. Could you please tell us how many times this "just cause" provision has been tested by Green Dot Schools? Also, are you saying the contract has not been written or are you simply refusing to allow UFT members to see it?

It would appear Mr. Casey is correct that there is no contract. As for my question about the "just cause" in Green Dot, he has pointedly chosen to ignore it. Instead, he accuses me of having a "rich fantasy life."

Nonetheless, if Mr. Casey has any data whatsoever to show this process actually works, that it's actually been utilized, or that it has protected Green Dot teachers, I'm open.

Meanwhile, I must categorize Edwize's contention that Green Dot's "just cause" is superior to tenure as utter nonsense. However, it's certainly charming that Leo Casey prefers to libel a working UFT teacher (namely me) rather than utter a disparaging word about role-model Steve Barr.

It's nice that Mr. Barr gets support from the UFT. It would be nicer, though, if they'd focus their energy more on supporting working teachers. After all, that is their job.

Isn't it?

Green Dots in Locke (and NYC)

Green Dot Charter Schools have taken over Locke High School in LA, and columnist Steve Lopez of the LA Times sees improvements already. Apparently they've dumped two-thirds of the teaching staff, instituted dress codes for students, and tightened up security considerably.

I work in what's considered an excellent regular high school, but it would be much better if administration were to accept no nonsense from kids. I don't accept it in my classes, but I really can't get involved in the halls as I'm dead certain I will receive little or no backup.

Public schools here are not permitted to mandate dress codes, as Green Dot apparently is. And while Chancellor Klein talks a big game about reporting illegal and dangerous behavior, there's little incentive for principals to cooperate as it may impact negatively on their ability to earn 30 grand in merit pay.

Lopez offers no evidence tenure and seniority for teachers would preclude what's described in the column, or that union contracts stood in the way of any of the changes mentioned. Certainly Chancellor Klein would love to have the option of firing two-thirds of working teachers and replacing them with shiny new Teaching Fellows, TFAs, and newbies at half the salary. After all, there are still stadiums to be built.

Here in NYC, he's got a willing collaborator in UFT President Randi Weingarten, who's partnered with Green Dot to open a charter in NYC. Ms. Weingarten and her Edwize minions insist that what they have at Green Dot is better than tenure. It's difficult for me to imagine that the newly-fired Locke teachers share her sentiments right now. In fact, Green Dot ejects not only tenure, but seniority rights as well. Here's what its website proclaims:

Key reforms embodied in the AMU contract include: teachers have explicit say in school policy and curriculum; no tenure or seniority preference...

Perhaps you're willing to trust the good graces of Green Dot. Perhaps you believe they won't dump you out on the street, as they just did to two-thirds of the teachers at Locke. Probably the teachers at Locke thought that too, or they wouldn't have invited Green Dot in the first place. After all, Green Dot's Steve Barr bought them pizza, so he must be a good guy. Right?

More remarkable than any of this is the fact that the United Federation of Teachers, whose job, ostensibly, is to stand up and negotiate for us, would invite this company into the city.

On May 17th, 2007, the LA Times ran an editorial which stated Locke teachers:

...are perfectly willing to loosen work rules and toss tenure out the classroom window...

I wrote about this story here on that very day, saying:

Green Dot charter schools are interesting to me. I was thrilled when Eduwonk featured its founder, Steve Barr, as a guest blogger. I thought unionized charters were a hopeful sign for innovative education. But it turns out there's no tenure in Mr. Barr's variety of union, and the LA Times urges teachers to toss it out the classroom window.

This provoked a typically vicious response from Leo Casey, Ms. Weingarten's internet mouthpiece:

From the “make up whatever facts fit today’s rant” school of thought, there is the assertion that Barr has thrown tenure out the window.

Mr. Casey, via his link, attributes the assertion to me. However, it was the LA Times who made the remark. Thus, Leo Casey, unelected UFT High School Vice-President, shows that he'd rather libel a working teacher than abide criticism of a charter school boss who explicitly rejects both tenure and seniority.


Working people have it very tough in the USA nowadays. It's simply unconscionable that union officials should be working at making things worse. And despite what the Unity/New-Action machine may tell you, Rod "The NEA is a terrorist organization" Paige admires UFT President Randi Weingarten but not because she's improved the lot of working people.

Leo Casey asks:

...why let the facts get in the way of a good rant?

Why indeed, Mr. Casey? Now that we have more facts about Green Dot, I have total confidence you'll ignore them utterly. You've got your gig, and your two pensions, and really, who gives a damn if generations of Americans will suffer for your willful and unconscionable refusal to confront reality?

PS: At Locke, Green Dot gets just just one more little advantage:

With the help of private donations, class sizes will be kept at about 28 instead of 40.

There's nothing like a level playing field, and Green Dot's sweetheart deal is nothing like a level playing field at all. Wouldn't it be nice if we had lower class sizes too? It's odd we don't. The UFT declared "Mission Accomplished" on class sizes back on April 12th, 2007.

Doubletalk

That's what you'll find in the Daily News, where hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson is once again sharing his expertise with us, the bootless and unhorsed. At a time when working people in this country are losing their jobs, their homes, and living hand to mouth, Mr. Tilson suggests fewer options for them is the way to go.

Naturally, it's those goshdarn unions again. If only working people would stop demanding pay, demanding rights, and demanding benefits, we'd have a utopia. The specific problem today, according to Mr. Tilson, is that it's simply too hard to fire teachers.

Mr. Tilson gives the UFT Charter School as an example. He praises the UFT for having opened it, but laments the fact that a teacher grieved being fired, and was reinstated. He hopes the UFT will thus learn the folly of protecting working people. And Mr. Tilson certainly puts his money where his mouth is, investing heavily in companies like Wal-Mart and McDonald's, which have rich histories of exploitation. Mr. Tilson muses that government should follow in the footsteps of his highly profitable investments:

...I do hope that everyone involved takes the opportunity to learn a critical lesson about what makes charters - and, indeed, all public schools - successful: that principals need the authority to manage their schools, especially the ability to hire and fire all staff. At times, this can lead to conflict with teachers' "rights" tokeep their jobs, but in such cases, it's the manager's job - and should be his or her right, within certain boundaries - to make a decision and stand by it.

A key difference between Mr. Tilson's outlook and mine, I suppose, is his utter disregard for facts in evidence. Perhaps Mr. Tilson is simply unaware that all public schools in nearby Nassau County are unionized, and that all teachers here are also subject to state tenure laws. Perhaps Mr. Tilson is unaware that, unlike the city, existing tenure laws are actually enforced here. More likely, he consciously chooses to ignore these facts, as does the Daily News.

Mr. Tilson goes on to cite Green Dot as an example of a school with a more reasonable contract. Here, he's got some support from the UFT aristocracy. But neither Mr. Tilson nor libelous Leo Casey has been able to provide a single example of the Green Dot contract protecting a teacher. In fact, since Green Dot proudly rejects both tenure and seniority rights, I've yet to hear a single example of their "just cause" clause ever having been exercised. Doubtless Mr. Tilson delights in a contracts where working people can be discharged "just cause" it suits the administration's whims.

Actually, what makes good schools successful is not a principal's option to fire whomever he pleases. In fact, it is these very principals who've been routinely assigning tenure to anyone with a pulse. And while Chancellor Klein can complain from now till doomsday about tenure regulations, existing rules work much better in schools where they're actually enforced. Would Mr. Klein do better with better principals? Perhaps. But his track record makes it doubtful he has the remotest notion what a good principal is.

Mr. Tilson is certainly free to admire the Wal-Mart/ McDonald's model. But he's sorely mistaken about what constitutes a good school. Good teachers, reasonable class sizes, and decent facilities, not "reforms," make up the recipe. It's tough for principals, however good they may be, to rise above a lack of ingredients.

Endless work for little reward may have pleased feudal lords, but working people today need more, not fewer options. And it behooves us not to degrade the job of teaching, but to improve the jobs of working people everywhere.

Our children deserve a future with options well beyond those of simply enriching the likes of Mr. Tilson.

Thanks to Schoolgal

Ms. Weingarten Runs a School

There's trouble in paradise, and it may take more than a spoonful of sugar to fix.

The UFT-run charter school, which was to be perfect in every way, appears to be suffering from some of the same issues that trouble other charters. As a regular reader of both NY Teacher and Edwize, I know Ms. Weingarten has never, ever made a mistake, and no one who works for Ms. Weingarten has ever made a mistake. Naturally, I must suppose they hire perfect teachers who'd happily labor forever under her beneficent leadership.

And naturally, I routinely ignore rumors and email suggesting Ms. Weingarten runs the place like a boot camp.

Still, parents complain of teacher turnover. Doubtless neither they nor the picky pedagogues appreciate the fine work of Ms. Weingarten and her infallible staff. They can be pesky, those parents. Doubtless that's why they had to threaten the top administrator at the UFT school, Rita Danis, in order to get an audience.

And look, after all that trouble, they ended up in The New York Sun anyway. How can this happen to the UFT leadership, who never, ever make mistakes? These darn parents say the UFT leadership is ignoring problems like "lack of security guards, poor communication with administrators, and high teacher turnover." Promptly, UFT bigshots committed to study the issue.

You can imagine how relieved those parents must be. As a teacher, I'm certainly satisfied that the union is studying mayoral control. Perhaps one day they'll come to a conclusion. Meanwhile, I'm well aware that opposing it might jeopardize Ms. Weingarten's political aspirations, thus violating the prime directive of the entire UFT patronage mill (and all the perfect people populating it).

So, naturally, I'm encouraged by all the progress Ms. Weingarten is making:

A regular review of the school issued by the State University of New York's Charter School Institute about the 2006-2007 school year called teacher quality "limited," describing "a lack of student engagement throughout most classrooms" and widespread misbehavior. The report also noted that, "Teachers did not capitalize on 'teaching moments.'"

In any case, the parents got their meeting. In a typical display of the sort of transparency that typifies the workings of our union, a reporter was forbidden to sit in.

As for me, I'm encouraged as usual by the brilliant successes of our Great Leader, Ms. Weingarten. And naturally, I applaud her decision to expand her charter business, opening a Green Dot school here in NYC. There are very few teacher union leaders who'd go out on a limb for a charter chain that proudly rejects both tenure and seniority. No doubt it's such actions that have earned her the admiration and devotion of Rod "The NEA is a terrorist organization" Paige.

Regardless, it certainly appears at the UFT charter school Ms. Weingarten is finally getting a chance to do to schoolchildren what she's been doing to working teachers for years.