Andy Cuomo's Three-Ring Common Core Circus

Intrepid Reality-Based Educator has the rundown on Governor Andy's Common Core panel.  I hear good things about teacher Todd Hathaway, who may perhaps counter the other teacher, E4E's Nick Lawrence. Presumably Lawrence supports whatever E4E's corporate overlords see fit. As someone who deals with real live teachers every day of my life, as someone who knows no teacher who supports E4E or its reprehensible policies, I find it outrageous that they get equal representation to that of real working teachers.

And yes, I know that Lawrence may be a working teacher but there is no way on God's green earth that his policies represent those of any more than a tiny fraction of teachers, particularly those of us encumbered with conscience. There are bright spots on the panel, like Linda Darling-Hammond, yet even she does not oppose Common Core. There is also Cathy Nolan, who was brilliant at the Grover Cleveland High School hearing, but who, alas, does not oppose Common Core.

I have not the foggiest notion how or why Michelle Rhee's brainchild, TNTP,  or even IBM represent the people of New York. I will grant they may represent, like E4E, the fine folks who funnel much-needed cash toward Andrew Cuomo's relentless ambition/ campaign funds. Senator John Flanagan, of course, is the man who sponsored legislation, on behalf of Emperor Bloomberg, to destroy seniority rights for NYC teachers only. (Perish forbid there should be blowback from the district the fine Senator actually represents.) It's acutely bizarre to see UFT boast of his inclusion on Cuomo's panel.

What can we expect from this panel? Will the one independently-minded educator be able to sway everyone else? Will they support a two-year moratorium on results from high-stakes testing, as some on the panel already do? And even if that comes to pass, how will that help parents with young children facing developmentally inappropriate tasks? Will there be any move to stop the idiocy from buffoons like Arne Duncan, who can't wait to slime suburban public schools and open up privatization opportunities for his BFFs?

And even if there is a two-year moratorium on teachers being judged by junk science, how have we determined that 2016 is a good year to initiate junk science evaluations? Isn't education something that ought to be based on reality, as opposed to the most expedient manner of enriching Eva Moskowitz? Isn't the optimal percentage of junk science in education precisely zero?

Personally, I find it borderline incredible I even need to discuss such things.

Students First and Governor 1%--Perfect Together

A new piece at Gotham Schools makes plain what was already obvious to many--there's precious little difference between stone-cold opportunist Andrew Cuomo and the GOP. Otherwise, why would he take a "principled stand" to kill the millionaire tax, while ripping off city children to the tune of a quarter billion dollars? And why would anyone need to sue the state to restore over 5 billion in aid promised to poor schools?

There are a few interesting points that jump out here. One, of course, is that Cuomo, self-proclaimed "student lobbyist" clearly doesn't give a damn about funding schools that most need it. The other is that Students First couldn't care less either. While it's true these folks give precious lip service to the lie they care about kids, it's money they really seem to be after. Privatizing places schools even farther from community control than they already are, and nothing will satisfy Emperor Bloomberg short of the wholesale sellout of public schools to his BFFs.

I'm a lifelong Democrat, and I could not vote for Andrew Cuomo. In fact, the UFT didn't endorse him either. Yet they're now perfectly willing to place their faith in his ability to have one of his stooges impose a junk science evaluation plan on working teachers. This boggles my mind. I'm absolutely persuaded this will result in the firing of good teachers, as such plans have already done in DC.

There are people worth having faith in, but I fail to see how Cuomo merits being one of them. When Bloomberg was screaming about LIFO, pushing for the right to fire anyone he felt like on any basis whatsoever, Cuomo took a stand against that. But I distinctly recall his saying that it wouldn't be necessary because of the upcoming evaluation system. The implication being, of course, that this evaluation system would cause teachers to be fired anyway. How does the UFT infer this as coming from someone who ought to be judging teachers?

I've watched years of trying to make reformy folks happy. First we got the 2005 contract, which severely reduced seniority rights, created the miserable ATR, and send teachers back to patrol hallways and bathrooms. The tabloids cheered this contract, and if that wasn't evidence it was a huge error, I don't know what was. Teachers cannot appeal letters in file anymore simply because they are patently false. I'm not precisely sure how that benefits us either, but what do I know?

Where are the real Democrats? If we can't differentiate between the Democrats and the GOP, who are we left with? If Democrats are not offering working people a working choice, working people are going to need to create their own. And with all due respect for union leadership, we're not going to accomplish that by making nice-nice to those who seek to destroy us.

Stupid, Stupid, Stupid

Our country's awash in nonsense. Here is America, grabbing torches and pitchforks, united against evil teachers. How dare they spend decades working for less than similarly educated individuals? How dare they actually use the job security they got in exchange for giving up all that money to keep their jobs? Who the hell do these teachers think they are?

In Providence, they're simply firing all their teachers, no ifs, ands, or buts.  We all know that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, the guy who answers to the billionaire Koch Brothers (and demonstrates its literal truth in a prank call) is off maintaining he needs to close a budget, and therefore needs to kill collective bargaining for teachers and nurses. The fact that they're ready to give in on all economic issues does not persuade him otherwise.

Closer to home, some poll says 85% of New Yorkers oppose LIFO. The fact that there is no objective system to replace it did not enter into that poll. People just assumed there was, and that was good enough not only for the people giving the poll, but for its unquestioning participants.  Yet once again, the bills coming up to address that situation deal only with New York City teachers. How on earth can a Suffolk County state senator seriously introduce a bill that affects only teachers outside of his district? Only in America.

Mayor Bloomberg has laid down the gauntlet. Let him fire teachers, and let him select which teachers to fire. That's it. Let principals give U-ratings, for any reason or no reason, and you're gone.  Screw the contract, and screw people who've spent decades teaching. If you're principal is crazy, or a Leadership Academy automaton,  too bad for you. When Walmart comes to the city, maybe you can become an "associate" and wear one of those cool polyester vests made by someone in China making 18 cents an hour.

Bloomberg has been threatening layoffs for three years running. Were he to get rid of LIFO, you better believe they won't be mere words. You will see senior teachers dumped to the curb. No more pesky chapter leaders. You'd be crazy to take that job (unless you just took it to get a period off, go to conventions, and not actually do anything). Oppose the principal, get a U, and get fitted for that polyester vest. Contract, shmontract. They can and will do whatever the hell they want, because you can bet there will be layoffs each and every year, whether or not they're warranted.

The most incredible thing is the Fox News-fueled phenomenon of the watchful American, making sure that no one whatsoever has decent working conditions. I've been saying this for some time, but I think Diane Ravitch said it particularly well in her column the other day:

"As for pension and health-care envy, it is a sad thing when working Americans complain that someone else has benefits, instead of agreeing that everyone should have coverage for their health and old age. It reminds me of an old Soviet joke where a peasant says, "My neighbor has a cow and I have none, I want his cow to die." We should not join in this race to the bottom."

It's amazing that people don't realize the futility, the stupidity of such actions. It's like we're all out in the streets of Egypt demanding an even more repressive dictator.

There's a hysteria against taxes--they are evil. We pay too much, goes the myth. Never mind that paying more taxes could improve our quality of life, as Europeans and Canadians know. Never mind that such changes could end up making us more productive, stimulating our economy, and actually bringing up salaries. And never mind that all these various crises could be averted by rolling back tax cuts on the rich. President Obama caved and continued the idiotic Bush tax cuts. Governor Cuomo refused to continue a tax on those making over 200K a year.  The results are cuts to education and health care for the poor. Our priorities are insane.

There is hope. I leave you with the clear and simple voice of Cynthia Nixon, speaking truth to absurdity. I only hope someone is listening.