UFT Unity and Corporate Values

Leonie Haimson is one of the smartest people I know, and I did myself a disservice by failing to pay close enough attention to her comment:

How dare MORE fight for professional autonomy and against a corporate driven agenda! Who do you think you are?

I'd been looking at the relative truthiness of the ridiculous Unity leaflet and didn't immediately recognize the precise words Leonie was referencing:

MORE urged students to opt out of the state tests as a means of protecting the professional autonomy of educators and fighting against a corporate driven education system. 

Now think about that. That is meant as a criticism. Sure, it leads to their nonsensical and misleading assertions about a reward program. But take it on its face, and think about what it implies--precisely what Leonie said it did. Why on earth would any reasonably informed teacher not wish to fight a corporate driven education system? Anyone who's read Diane Ravitch's books knows how destructive and counter-productive such a system is. 

So you have to ask yourself--has UFT Unity leadership bothered to read Ravitch? If so, why would they criticize us? Actually there's a whole lot of evidence that UFT Unity actively supports a corporate driven education system. Do you remember when Mulgrew told the DA that it was necessary for us to participate in the Gates MET system, the one that judged "good" teaching by test scores? 

Does anyone remember the Bill Gates sponsored MET program being a precursor to Race to the Top, which mandated junk science ratings for teachers? Do we remember Michael Mulgrew going to Albany, then coming back and boasting of having helped write the APPR law that made junk science part of our ratings? Do we remember his telling the DA last Wednesday that the "matrix" would take authority away from principals? Doesn't that just mean the junk science is a higher percentage of our rating? Why not just make teacher ratings 100% based on crapshoots? After all, recent research suggests that VAM is never accurate, reliable or valid. So, while it's fairly amazing to see the President of the United Federation of Teachers boasting that we're increasing its value, it certainly helps explain UFT Unity's disgust with those of us who fight against a corporate driven education system. 

Ravitch suggests in Death and Life of the Great American School System that mayoral control is a corporate tool to bypass and subvert democracy. Yet UFT leadership has endorsed it twice, and under uber-reformy Michael Bloomberg to boot. The second time, after it had proven virtually toxic to working teachers and community schools, UFT leadership demanded a few changes, failed to get them, and went ahead and supported it anyway. Now Mulgrew says he supports it, but not as is. Nonetheless mayoral control bypasses community. Those of us who oppose a corporate driven education system oppose it completely. 

The icing on the top of the cake, of course, was when AFT invited Bill Gates to be the keynote at its convention. I've given a lot of thought to what Gates represents, and it certainly isn't working public school teachers or the kids we serve. In fact, shortly after visiting AFT, Gates criticized teacher pensions, calling them a free lunch. I don't know about you, but I've been working for 32 years, and I've earned each and every penny of that pension. Now, with our legislature working on ways to take it away, I'm not seeing the wisdom of cozying up to those who hate us and everything we stand for. Every time we give them something, they want more. We support Gates and he comes for our pensions. We support charters and they come for our tenure. Appeasement didn't work for Chamberlain then and doesn't work for Mulgrew now. 

As for professional autonomy, that's tough to achieve when you're judged by a checklist. Naturally that checklist is endorsed by UFT Unity, because they love them some Danielson. And yet Danielson herself is backing away on it. UFT Unity, whose leaders have never been judged by Danielson, can happily pretend that a rubric makes everything fair, or that all administrators make low inference notes rather than obeying the voices in their heads. But those of us on the ground know better.

Interestingly, when my friend Julie Cavanagh opposed the 2014 contract, UFT Unity's Leo Casey accused her of being against teacher empowerment. This was because the contract contained the PROSE initiative, so Leo made a handy strawman which ignored Julie's real objections and substituted words she'd never uttered. You know, Julie couldn't possibly be talking about the fact that the contract enabled two-tier due process, got us paid a decade after everyone else, or dumped the worst pattern I've ever seen on our brother and sister unionists (considerably worse than those for which we'd criticized DC37 in the past). No, she must have been criticizing PROSE, which was absolutely perfect even though it had never been tested, let alone utilized.

UFT Unity needs to fight dirty because it has no argument. I guess when everyone around you has signed a loyalty oath, you don't expect to ever need one. The only thing UFT Unity knows is that everything it does is right. When Bloomberg wants to use eight components of Danielson, it's an outrage. Unity fights for 22, which is ideal. When Unity pares it down to seven, it's a great victory. No more 22, which is awful. When we get artifacts added, it's a great victory. When we get them removed, it's also a great victory. And what they complain about is pretty much the only thing that's drawn Cuomo, at least ostensibly, out of his relentless assault on teachers.

The weird attribution of Opt Out to the MORE caucus by Unity. Insult to the parents' movement by @TeacherArthurG https://t.co/U4qtNuoXNO

— Carol Burris (@carolburris) June 17, 2016

Unity's arguments stem not from reason or practice, but rather from the outlandish assumption that everything it does is right. Therefore everything its opponents do must be wrong. The relative value or lack thereof of Unity positions means nothing. Their arguments come from backing themselves up no matter what, rather than from any basic value or standard. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to swap out positions as often as you or I change our socks. 

Now they've taken a stand against basic values set out by visionary education expert Diane Ravitch. I don't know about you, but I'm proud to stand with Ravitch, with activist parents, and with communities. Unity can continue to alienate all of us and paint itself into corners by making outlandish assertions simply to insult the most vibrant and thoughtful activist group in the UFT. 

But MORE/ New Action is just getting started. We will continue to speak the truth and Unity can squirm and spout its convoluted logic all it likes.

Or they can simply join us to improve our working conditions, which are precisely student learning conditions. Because whatever they choose, we aren't backing down and we aren't going away.   

Who's Afraid of Julie Cavanagh?

These are very tough times for teachers. We're facing an evaluation system that appears to be substantially based on nonsense. Mayor Bloomberg openly discusses his desire to hold teachers' feet to the fire, and when he says fire, that's certainly what he wishes to do to us. Governor Cuomo is now buying Bloomberg's argument that junk science agreements ought not to sunset, and stating they ought to remain in effect until and unless they are renegotiated.

Unity/ New Action's Mike Mulgrew was party to the negotiation of the law that subjects us to this. I've heard people defend it, along the lines of it subjecting teachers to less junk science than other states do. I've heard Mulgrew say that an agreement will be based on student improvement from the baseline of wherever they happen to be as opposed to their ability to pass some arbitrary standard. I haven't heard of or seen any study suggesting this is a valid way to judge teachers, but on the other hand we're discussing a system that does not yet exist. The UFT seems to trust John King to decide what it should be in binding arbitration, and I'd certainly like to hear why.

This system is likely the most crucial change to our profession in the 28 years I've been teaching, I say hell yes we need to hear from our candidates. If Mulgrew's vision is correct, if it is indeed the way we should go, why not say so? If Julie Cavanagh's vision is flawed, unrealistic, or whatever, why not show us all?

It's remarkable that UFT leadership could assume that we don't deserve to hear from the candidate, and a NY Post article has confirmed that to be the case.

I've not yet been persuaded this system will help teachers. In fact, I think it will cause good teachers to be fired, as we know has been the case in DC. I don't want that to happen to one single working teacher.

However, I'd very much like to be proven wrong. And if Mike Mulgrew can convince me I'm wrong, I'll gladly vote for Unity.

So here's the thing--will Unity/ New Action ask their candidate to debate?

Or are they afraid?

There's really not a third possibility.

Should Working Mothers With Sick Babies Attend the DA?

There's a small ruckus on the MORE blog about whether or not UFT President Mike Mulgrew should debate his sole opponent, Julie Cavanagh. While the respondents are often more civil than the juvenile ravings that haunt the ICE blog comment section, their arguments are bizarre, to say the least. As it happens, candidate Julie Cavanagh has an infant son, and the best argument they can seem to muster against her is that she doesn't attend the DA frequently enough.

The implication that she would neglect her duties, as a result, is beyond offensive. With all due respect, Mulgrew is not a full-time teacher. It is one of his primary responsibilities to conduct the DA. Cavanagh's primary responsibility is to teach her classes. If she couldn't be bothered doing that, we might have something to discuss. Or, depending on the circumstances, we might not. But to expect a young mother to teach a full day, tend to her infant child, and travel to meetings without fail is ridiculous at best, and misogynist at worst. 

When I go to the DA, I'm often amazed by what I see. I've watched Mike Mulgrew explain how we needed to participate in Bill Gates' MET study, to get that coveted seat at the table I hear so much about. I've seen us participate in a program that would utilize VAM but which absolutely, positively would not result in teacher scores going public. As a result of that, all scores did, in fact, become public after our less-than-trustworthy partner, the DOE, urged papers to file FOI requests. Individual working teachers were humiliated in the pages of the NY Post.

The first time I went to the DA, I voted against something. I can't remember what it was, but I do remember how everyone looked at me for doing so. A nearby Unity rep was horrified and started screaming at me. Our conversation turned to the 05 contract, the one that turned so many teachers into miserable ATRs, and red-faced, he shouted, "But we got MONEY!" in response. I will spare you my answer. Of course there are many Mom and Apple Pie issues on which I vote in the affirmative. It's disturbing to see Unity members now arguing against Mom.

On another trip to the DA, they were discussing Joel Klein's decision to only fund schools certain hours of the day. As my school opened before those hours and closed after those hours, I raised my hand. This was the one and only time I tried to be heard at the DA. Mulgrew called on a Unity member three feet to my left, not once, not twice, but three times. I was wearing a suit, unlike most in the auditorium, but I found I was invisible to the UFT President. I was certain I had the most salient point in the room, but it made no difference. It's ironic that I can be heard at the PEP, albeit for two minutes, but can't get heard at the UFT.

I regularly attend borough-wide chapter leader meetings, where there is open discussion. While I don't agree with everything that is said, I do hear important things and bring them back to my members. I also read everything written about education everywhere. Were I to rely on CL meetings, or the DA as a sole source of information, I'd have to ignore, for example, Diane Ravitch's opposition to VAM, mayoral control, and Common Core.

I went to vote on whether to accept Bloomberg's deal to avert firing teachers. I was torn, because the plan also forced ATR teachers to travel week to week, school to school. My friends in Unity all assured me the DOE was too incompetent to do this, and it would therefore never happen. James Eterno assured me it would. I abstained, unwilling to vote for firing teachers but unsure whether they'd treat the ATRs this way. As we all know, Eterno was right, and the DOE did indeed find a way to send ATR teachers all over the place.

At one DA, Mulgrew declared this system was a success because there were now more transfers. I suppose you can weigh the misery of ATRs, many of whom would have been placed under the old system, against the satisfaction of young teachers who've found places in the Open Market. I meet a lot of ATRs, I've got an open email address on this blog and I hear awful stories about their treatment on a fairly regular basis. There is no way I can celebrate a system that demoralizes so many working teachers.

The last time I went to the DA was to vote against the junk science evaluation system. I brought all our school's delegates with me. We were prepared to take a principled stand against VAM, but we all knew we would lose overwhelmingly. In a system where Unity recruits make up over 90% of the DA, a system in which every Unity member has signed an oath to support Unity positions in all public forums, there is no way principle will triumph over the junk science that Unity has deemed worthy of our support. Still, as a chapter leader, you do what's best for your members. Of course, if you've signed an oath agreeing to support your caucus whether or not what they're doing is right, that could prove difficult at times..

If you read David Selden's The Teacher Rebellion, you'll see that Unity has been expelling dissidents ever since Shanker. In fact, he threw people out of Unity for the offense of opposing the Vietnam War. So if you want to continue going to those groovy conventions on our dime, you need to tow the party line whether or not it benefits the teachers you ostensibly represent.

In any case, it's beyond absurd to maintain, as they now do, that the few minutes Julie Cavanagh may or may not get to speak at the DA is a substitute for the debate Mulgrew has thus far declined.  In fact, her opponent presides over the DA. Perhaps some Unity members believe democracy entails your opponent moderating and controlling the debate. They're certainly free to their opinions, but that particular one is beyond preposterous.

UFT members deserve to hear the ideas of those who'd presume to lead us in a free and open forum. If, in fact, Unity's ideas are so much better than those of the opposing caucus, it behooves them to demonstrate it.

The notion that the DA is remotely a substitute for free and open debate is preposterous. It is an insult to the intelligence of teachers everywhere. Anyone who contends the DA is a suitable forum for a debate between candidates is disingenuous and misleading, qualities I wouldn't seek in a chapter leader, let alone a union employee. 

Note--I will be traveling much of this week, so blogging will be light. I wish all readers of this blog a restful and joyous week off!