PROSE and Cons Part 2--Return of the Strawman

I had no idea the PROSE programs entailed enabling higher class sizes until the other day when Leonie Haimson tweeted it to Randi Weingarten. Leo Casey is consistently attentive to and protective of Randi, and I told Leonie he would claim she opposed teacher empowerment. I knew this because when my friend Julie Cavanagh opposed the latest substandard UFT Contract, that was exactly what he told her.

A few hours later, voila!

@leoniehaimson @TeacherArthurG @pfh1964 @lanecindy1234 @rweingarten Shame that u attack PROSE that empowers teachers to make positive change

— Leo Casey (@LeoECasey) July 19, 2015

When you misrepresent your opponent's argument, that's called a strawman fallacy. Leonie did not, in fact, say teachers shouldn't be empowered. Nor did Julie. When you oppose a contract containing an agreement for two-tier due process, when you oppose an agreement to wait an extra decade for the raise most unions got before 2010, when you disagree that ATRs should be fired for missing two interviews about which they may or may not be aware, it doesn't mean you oppose teacher empowerment. Who wants to be empowered in that fashion? Not me.

I certainly support teacher empowerment. As far as class size, it would be great to be able to dictate smaller class sizes. Because of what I teach, I've had classes ranging from 15 to the contractual max. In fact, I've had classes up to 50 in ESL, back when I was new and didn't know any better. I've also taught classes of 50 as a music teacher. I know about big classes, and I know about small classes. Class size matters.

Leonie Haimson also thinks class size matters, which is why she's an advocate for public school parents and students. That's pretty much her job. She wanted to know why the School Leadership Team of parents, admin, teachers and students didn't get a vote.

@leoniehaimson @pfh1964 @TeacherArthurG @lanecindy1234 @rweingarten @UFT Just curious Is there one real parent in school who has criticized?

— Leo Casey (@LeoECasey) July 19, 2015

This is pretty interesting. Just last week, Leo was angry at those of us who opposed the Hillary nomination. There was a scientific survey, he said, and we were questioning the results. I still haven't seen the survey, or the pool from which it was given, but how dare I? This week things were different. The fact is, parents do not get a vote on SBOs, be they PROSE or otherwise.

Leo harped on this quite a bit. Evidently, if there is a poll or a vote, you are not to question it. That's the way it is. If you don't accept it, well, you think only you and your friends should make the decision and you therefore don't believe in democracy. If there is not a poll or a vote, however, it's on you to actually find out how people feel, all by yourself.  The standing assumption, evidently, is UFT leadership is always right no matter what. But you know what? There was a vote. In fact, there were several, and they all said the same thing.

.@LeoECasey @TeacherArthurG @pfh1 @rweingarten reducing class size #1 priority of NYC parents in DOE surveys; sorry if @UFT doesn't agree

— leonie haimson (@leoniehaimson) July 19, 2015

Now you could assume, from what I say, that I oppose SBOs. Someone did.

There's one in my school this year. I'm pleased to tell you it passed at 97%. @rweingarten @UFT

— Arthur Goldstein (@TeacherArthurG) July 19, 2015

I most certainly do not oppose SBOs. Nor do I oppose teacher empowerment. Like Leonie, I oppose unreasonably large class sizes. If you want to empower teachers, give them the option to have smaller class sizes, even if the city has to pay for it. Don't tell me the only way to reduce what is already the highest class size in the state for some is to dump others into lecture-style classes. Don't tell me that some kids need attention and others do not.

Here's a fact--class size limits have remained the same in NYC for over 50 years, and class sizes themselves have been rising for 8 years. They are at a 15-year high in early grades. While UFT leadership devotes valuable lip service to it from time to time, they have done absolutely nothing to change it. I think some parts of the contract ought not to be messed with. In particular, class size ought to be inviolate. It's too high already.

Looking over some of these PROSE proposals, I note that it may be the teacher's option to teach oversized classes. That is simply a terrible idea. Can you imagine being a probationary teacher and having the principal ask you whether or not you want to teach an oversized class? What are you gonna say? In fact, given the terror many of us feel at the junk science evaluation system, which tenured teacher wants to face that?

There is a good reason why the chapter leader is given the task of grieving oversized classes. Once, I filed a grievance over them, and an administrator approached me. She said she asked Mr. Smith which kid he wanted removed from his class, and he said he wanted all of them to stay. What should she do? I told her it was not my problem, and it was not Mr. Smith's problem either. She overloaded the class, and it was on her to fix it.

When the chapter leader takes care of it, you don't have to pick which kid leaves your class. And you can't be made to feel guilty about it. Furthermore, you don't have to worry about the principal asking you for a waiver so he can dump extra kids in your class. You don't need to be put in the position of having to turn down his request to add students to what is already the highest class size in NY State.

Make no mistake--that is teacher empowerment. Allowing for exceptions to an already inadequate rule is precisely the opposite.

Beware the Strawman

I frequently see ridiculous arguments, and sometimes they come from Leo Casey, evidently the intellectual colossus of our union, or AFT, or whoever it is he works for these days. For years I watched him on Edwize as he told us in lengthy articles why Carol Burris was wrong, why junk science APPR wasn't so bad, why the 2005 contract was worth voting for, why its opponents didn't believe in democracy, or why whatever leadership said was right, even if they blatantly contradict themselves.

It won't surprise you that I often disagreed with him, seeing odd leaps of logic. But I didn't have precise names for them until my young nephew offered me a brief lesson on logical fallacies. I then began to note how frequently I saw them in Casey's rationales of outrageous leadership decisions. A few heated conversations on Twitter over the AFT decision to endorse Hillary Clinton reminded me. I'll provide you with some samples.

@MOREcaucusNYC That's your problem: you think AFT should listen to 25 of you, not 1.6 million members.

— Leo Casey (@LeoECasey) July 11, 2015

This is a textbook strawman argument. It's a logical fallacy, and you ought not to be fooled by it.

First of all, Casey has no idea how many members there are in MORE, let alone how many supporters they have. The fact is they got a whole lot more votes than that in the last election.  But that's not even the point. Rather than address it, he chooses to put words in their mouths and ridicule rather than engage.

MORE never said or even implied that decisions should be made by them alone. In fact the avalanche of opposition, including thousands of negative comments on AFT's Facebook page suggests his assumption is invalid. But it doesn't even matter. A strawman is never a valid argument.

@rubinsteindds @NTampio @mma718 @MOREcaucusNYC You don't want to discuss Common Core, where your position is aligned w/Republican far right.

— Leo Casey (@LeoECasey) July 13, 2015

This condemns those of us who, like Diane Ravitch, disagree with Common Core. It's also another strawman. In fact, Professor Nicholas Tampio, to whom this was addressed, opposes Common Core and has written and spoken extensively about it. Casey offers no discussion of its merits or lack thereof. He simply equates Tampio with others who oppose it. That couples the strawman with "guilt by association," another logical fallacy. The assumption is that you agree with some group we find objectionable, so you are therefore wrong. In this case, Leo Casey is referring to GOP candidates. (Interestingly enough, 40% of those polled by AFT appear to be Republicans, and their opinions were completely disregarded. Therefore, if we accept the assertion that the poll was scientific, fair and random, if 3 out of 4 of the 60% left supported Hillary, it indicates she was supported by 45% of those polled.) It's ridiculous. But why not trot it out again anyway?

Not only is that a strawman, and not an answer, but Nick also specifically stated he opposed GOP. @LeoECasey @NTampio @mma718 @MOREcaucusNYC

— Arthur Goldstein (@TeacherArthurG) July 13, 2015

Even though Tampio had specifically said he didn't agree with GOP candidates, why not suggest he agrees with them anyway? That may be uninformed, or it may be disingenuous, but it's most certainly incorrect, and it's another exercise in the guilt by association fallacy.

@TeacherArthurG @TheJLV Right, insult everyone who disagrees with you.

— Leo Casey (@LeoECasey) July 13, 2015

Another strawman, another logical fallacy. I had responded to an assertion that there was a difference in voices at an AFT convention and on the internet.  Voices that disagree with AFT tend not to attend their conventions. I, for one, was not invited, and had no idea they were even having one. How much money does UFT spend sending loyalty oath signers to conventions? It must be millions. And while we're on that topic:

@msmoskop @BiancaTanis @nysut @AFTunion Use of pejorative, misleading, & insulting terms like "loyalty oaths" is disrespectful.

— Leo Casey (@LeoECasey) July 13, 2015

You'd better believe it's pejorative, and it's true I have no respect whatsoever for loyalty oaths. But it isn't those of us who call the loyalty oath a loyalty oath who are misleading. It is, in fact, the people who fail to notify us of its existence, let alone what it is or what it means.

Chapter leaders are elected to represent their members, not Leo Casey, not Michael Mulgrew and not their Unity Caucus. Most members have no idea their chapter leaders have agreed to vote as told. And the fact is the Unity Caucus has supported VAM, Common Core, and a multitude of things that negatively affect students and teachers. They can defend them all day long, but they most certainly contribute to the cynicism and despair of membership, as reflected in our miserable voter turnout. I vote all the time because I can't help myself, but members have asked me to my face why they should bother voting when the fix is in.

So what do you do if you don't like the decisions leadership makes for you?

@msmoskop @BiancaTanis @nysut @AFTunion and join a different organization or not be part of any organization.

— Leo Casey (@LeoECasey) July 13, 2015

I was pretty shocked by that, particularly as we are facing a decision by SCOTUS that may allow people to withhold dues altogether. I interpreted that to mean Casey was suggesting we leave the union. But Megan saw it otherwise.

@msmoskop @patsfan_in_pgh @AFTunion Thank you for correcting misrepresentation of what I said.

— Leo Casey (@LeoECasey) July 14, 2015

It's nice that Megan, a member of the MORE group Casey ridiculed and misrepresented, was thoughtful enough to clarify for him. Would that he had the same courtesy for her and others. But even given this interpretation, his answer is disingenuous and misleading. The fact is the Unity Caucus is an elite, invitation only group. You must be sponsored by a member to join. So while there are other choices, the choice to join the caucus that makes all the decisions for our union is open only to a very small minority.