DA Takeaway--Through the Looking Glass with UFT Unity

Given the volume of outlandish and contradictory statements from the Unity loyalty oath signers, it was very hard to take notes quietly at the DA the other day. Mulgrew opened with sexist statements about Betsy DeVos, calling her, "our own beauty," before launching into ridicule of her name. This mirrored the UFT Unity Twitter feed, which took down a tweet or two after being called on them right here on this blog. You can still see what they said, though. (In fairness, there was later a PowerPoint with actual information.)

Mulgrew then drew us into his dream world, effusively praising the new evaluation system which, alas, has not only never been tested, but also does not yet even exist.  Mulgrew, who has never taught a single class under any evaluation system he negotiated, spoke with complete confidence about "authentic" measures that would be used to evaluate our teaching. He is no longer using the phrase "growth model," but continues to contend that growth can be measured via portfolios or project-based learning.

Remember that this is the same Mulgrew who boasted of taking part in writing the law that brought all this nonsense upon us in the first place. This is the same Mulgrew that called the system wonderful when Reformy John King created it, with his blessing, the same Mulgrew who ridiculed those of us, including Diane Ravitch and the American Statistical Association, who labeled it junk science. This is the same Mulgrew who boasted of getting every aspect of Danielson in as opposed to the seven or eight Bloomberg wanted, and the same Mulgrew who later boasted of getting it reduced to seven or eight, like Bloomberg wanted, after he was gone. This is the same Mulgrew who boasted of getting artifacts in, and then of getting them out.

Mulgrew is now saying, even though he deemed test-score ratings wonderful when they came out, that we will not use tests to rate teachers. He has finally concluded, as many of us did long ago, that this would result in teaching to the test. He says, though, that some teachers love being rated on tests. It's really remarkable that we're basically advocating a crap shoot because it's that risky to have administrators evaluate us. With such an absolute lack of faith in the ability of administrators, you'd think they'd want to do something about that, but they refuse to move on our resolution addressing it. Somehow it's OK to shout to the skies about how unfair they are, but wildly undiplomatic to take general action on it. 

Again, there is no research or practice to support anything Mulgrew says. I have no idea whatsoever how projects or portfolios will be rated or who will rate them. Mulgrew spoke derisively of those who ridicule us that we will actually grade the work ourselves. On the other hand, unlike Mulgrew, I'm a teacher and I actually spend hours grading things. I wonder, if we are not grading the work, who is? Is it the supervisors, the ones who he wants to make sure don't rate us? Is it the geniuses up in Albany? People from other schools? Space aliens? Who knows? Mulgrew, right on the heels of the most catastrophic failure in our union's history, continues to speak with total confidence, and we are expected to trust him absolutely and hope for the best.

Despite the punitive evaluation system pushed by Governor Cuomo, Mulgrew says he continues to support us. It's obvious to me, at least, that Cuomo is a creature of convenience who will do or say anything at any moment to advance his own personal ambition. Mulgrew mentioned in passing extending the moratorium he claims we are responsible for, but which actually was put in place to try to appease the statewide opt-out movement. Though Mulgrew claims to be meeting with parents, and I hear he is, he then said that it was dangerous for more than 5% of New Yorkers to refuse the test. This is no different from what he has been saying since opt-out appeared.

We then came to the discussion of the Resolution for Respect for All People. The history of this resolution is pretty interesting, to me at least. I wanted to jointly initiate such a resolution with Unity, so rather than write it, I proposed it to leadership. They said they'd get back to me. Days later, at an Executive Board meeting, where I rose to promote this idea, they had the resolution already written, with no input from us. (So much for trying to cooperate with Unity.)

This notwithstanding, the resolution was very good. With a few adjustments from Ashraya Gupta of MORE, all of the high school reps supported it enthusiastically. The next day, though, instead of crediting Donald Trump with his racism, bigotry, and misogyny, it was edited to attribute this to "the Presidential Election" instead. This was, of course, absurd (and still is).

Peter Lamphere of MORE rose at the DA to restore Trump's name. Mulgrew, ever the student of Robert's Rules, called on several Unity Caucus members to speak against it and never once asked for a voice of support, and it wasn't as though there weren't any. I saw several close to me with hands raised, ready to speak. One Unity member said it was obvious this was about Trump, so there was no need to add his name. LeRoy Barr, though, said we couldn't place his name because we were trying to get everyone on board, including Trump supporters.

I have to say Barr is a gifted speaker, passionate and persuasive. I saw him speak in Minnesota at the AFT Convention and he was great. Here, he spoke off the cuff and was just as effective. Yet he contradicted the other loyalty oath signers by saying we didn't want to alienate the Trump supporters. So which is it? Is it so obvious that we're talking about Trump that we need not name him, or is it important that we refrain from speaking his name so that the Trump voters continue paying dues once He Who Shall Not Be Named makes the United States a "Right to Work" nation? There is, of course, a third possibility--that UFT leadership thinks Trump voters are too stupid to attribute the racism to Trump. Maybe Unity assumes they will think it was Hillary or Bernie Sanders who advocated grabbing women "by the pussy." Who knows what goes on in those top-secret Unity meetings?

All I know is that they rise to support whatever they're told to. I was pretty surprised when Barr touted debate at the Executive Board as a reason to stifle it at the DA. While I did appreciate his willingness to enable it, and while that certainly sets him apart from Mulgrew, who can't even be bothered to sit through his own Executive Board meetings, the fact is the result of any Executive Board debate is a foregone conclusion. There are seven of us elected by UFT high schools against the will of leadership, and 95 loyalty oath signers who must vote and speak as told.

There is no logical reason to withhold criticism of the execrable and anti-democratic Donald Trump. However, anti-democracy is a quality that Trump and UFT Unity share. This, sadly, is just one of the qualities very likely to result in our losing on the NY Constitutional Convention, and maybe the pensions for which we've worked our entire careers. Another is our dogged insistence on falling down well before anyone has even pushed us.

The very worst quality of UFT Unity leadership, though, is that they just bet the farm on a candidate who stood for nothing, lost the farm, and still can't bring themselves to take clear and principled stands on issues that, debate notwithstanding, aren't even debatable. 

Patsy Cline Sings Crazy. UFT Practices It.

It's kind of funny, if you fancy gallows humor, that the United Federation of Teachers, the largest teacher local in the United States of America, can't manage to change. After all, patronage has been the icing on the cake, perhaps the cake itself. Last Monday I went to a meeting in which UFT Unity loyalists all stood up to say it was too dangerous to take sides against Trump, because we might alienate Trump voters in our midst.

Why did they do this? Because "leadership" of the union, according to Secretary Howie Schoor, made this decision. Jonathan Halabi asked for names, but instead, we heard "leadership." Who is that, I wonder. Is it Michael Mulgrew, who won't get on social media, who carries a flip phone so as not to be troubled with electronic communication, who flits in and out of Executive Board meetings like a butterfly who doesn't want its wings ruffled? Is it LeRoy Barr, who seems to think on his feet, whose mind appears newly open to the fact that we may actually need to do something differently? Is it the entire mysterious and elusive AdCom committee, whose meeting minutes we are asked to approve even though we don't attend? Is it Randi Weingarten, hanging around DC and still pulling our strings?

We'll never know.

Leadership doesn't understand that at all. What they know best is inertia. Nonetheless, when they put out the bat signal for Unity Caucus members to get up and speak, they do. They stand and wait for the chance to argue that the United Federation of Teachers ought not to take sides against the bigoted, homophobic, racist and anti-Semitic Donald Trump. People might get mad at us if we take sides. That's what they're told to say, so they do. This is activism, UFT style.

Of course, this follows their all-out miserable failure of a push to make Hillary Clinton President. In fact, there was a Hillary Clinton office at 52 Broadway, and Mulgrew boasted of it to the Delegate Assembly. Now why the hell was that if we can't alienate people? Were they worried about Trump supporters then? Were they concerned about alienating me, a Bernie Sanders supporter? Was Randi Weingarten worried about how I'd feel when she tweeted about "Bernie Bros," the stereotypical and baseless insinuation we were a bunch of thugs?

I know Trump voters in my building. They won't support me for US Senator, but they'll vote for me as chapter leader. They've told me so. They know absolutely I will stand for them when they're in trouble no matter who they or I select as US President. They aren't so sure about the folks at 52 Broadway, particularly when things like class size violations go fundamentally unchecked.  

By the logic leadership advanced last Monday night, the UFT ought not to ever take a position on anything, because there's always the possibility someone might disagree. We ought not to oppose "right to work," even though it will shoot an arrow through our veritable heart, because some members may support the notion of saving 1200 bucks a year. Instead of soliciting donations for COPE, we ought to abandon it altogether. Taking sides is too risky. Let's drop the pretense and officially stand for nothing.

The argument might hold merit, considering UFT leadership's long and uncanny run of political failure. Who can forget the musical chair-style endorsements of Hevesi, Ferrer, and that idiot Mark What's-His-Name who alienated Ferrer voters and lost to Bloomberg? Who doesn't recall our failure to support Thompson against third-term, won by 5% Bloomberg? Who's forgotten, after we stabbed Thompson in the back, that he said we couldn't afford raises for teachers, and we then finally supported him anyway? Who can't forget Thompson's loss against de Blasio, and our failure to get what NYPD and FDNY got until ten years later?

Oh, and who recalls our champion Hillary failing to support any substantive change or improvement for working Americans, thus enabling demagogue Trump to take over? Wasn't Hillary a foregone conclusion, wasn't she inevitable, and weren't those of us who dared question those assumptions apostates, to be ridiculed and derided?

Of course, the now-officially sanctioned conclusion that we ought not to take sides is preposterous. One Unity person got up and made the inane and outlandish argument that Trump was of no consequence, and that we ought to instead write in the name of Hitler. I stood there thinking if it actually were Hitler, we'd lack the nerve to utter his name. Another spoke to MORE rep Ashraya Gupta, who openly wondered how a Trump presidency would affect people who looked like her. The Unity member said she was Latina and understood Ashraya's concerns. Then she spoke a bunch of nonsense, and went back to Ashraya's concern, angrily declaring, "I don't play that card!" This was remarkable because when she declared she was Latina, she indeed played that very card. A good thing about being Unity is no matter what you say, no matter how you contradict yourself, if you're on the correct side it's officially sanctioned and therefore always right.

We've got a whole lot of people in Unity who formulate arguments I would not accept from my beginning ESL students. UFT Unity will stoop to any level, invent ridiculous nonsense to attack those of us who dare question them, and give not a second thought to alienating, say, the opt-out movement that made Cuomo step back from his vicious anti-public education stance.  UFT Unity employs a social media twitter person who is outrageously sexist, who posts things from real education defenders and has zero awareness they fundamentally oppose UFT positions.

Of course, the Unity Caucus members sign a loyalty oath, and therefore get up and say any damn thing they are told to. They enable and recruit people who are, charitably, less than diplomatic, people who feel no compunction to think things through, people who say what they're told and stoop to any level to defend it. On Twitter I got into an argument with a Unity loyalist who contended it was great that burden of proof was on teachers at 3020a. He thought teachers facing career loss could then own their arguments, or some other such blithering nonsense.

A few weeks ago, UFT Unity unanimously supported the original resolution rightly criticizing Trump. We, the high school reps, applauded and enthusiastically supported it. Last Monday they were scrambling back and forth to rationalize the cowardice of deleting Trump's name. I give credit to LeRoy Barr and Howie Schoor for enabling an honest discussion on this issue. The last time I was able to participate in an honest discussion with union leadership was never (and if you're reading this, Unity, that cuts to the core of our problem).

This notwithstanding, the notion that a labor movement ought not to take a stand against demagogues is simply idiotic. Trump is coming for us, and being fraidy-scared to speak his name is not only disingenuous, not only unprincipled, but also short-sighted and counter-productive, the same thinking that's gotten us into the rut we're in now.

I hope against hope that leadership wakes up, palm-slaps themselves on the forehead, and realizes stifling thought and allowing patronage-inspired, self-serving obsequiousness to pass as activism has gotten us exactly where we are now.  I'll certainly do my part to sound the alarm, but it's hard to teach an old machine new tricks. 

Not Insane---A Supervisory Blueprint

Chalkbeat writes about the "authentic" learning standards pushed by UFT President Michael Mulgrew. I am not at all sure there's any validity to judging teachers by student work, be it tests, portfolios, projects, or whatever, and I've seen no evidence supporting this presumption. In fact, there's a lot of evidence pointing otherwise, including that of the American Statistical Association, which suggests that teachers affect student work by a factor somewhere between 1 to 14%.

When the junk science rating law was passed, Mulgrew boasted of having a hand in writing it. The official position was that we were very smart to place this in law, as it would now be firmly in place (proven wrong when Cuomo and the Heavy Hearts made it worse). It was supposedly a good thing, a counter against crazy supervisors. I know multiple teachers whose ratings have been dragged down by this junk science, some all the way down to ineffective. (In fact, I know one who got crappy ratings from a UFT rat squad person, and much better ones from a working supervisor. That's ironic, because the rat squad was supposed to be a check against crazy supervisors.)

What makes someone want to be a supervisor? Well, there are those who want to help. Maybe some principal respects a certain teacher and asks that this person get trained and contribute. Maybe some people fall into supervisory positions and catch up to keep the jobs. Of course, some people were recruited by Joel Klein's Leadership Academy and were trained to actively go after working teachers. You read a lot about these supervisors in the NY Post, about how they're removed from one position after another, and are given new positions either in schools or shuffling papers at Tweed.

Then there are those who want to "get out of the classroom." In my humble opinion, anyone who wants to do that is unfit to lead. The classroom is the center of school activity. It is where the most important work takes place. Anyone who can't or doesn't want to do that ought not to be rating teachers. Unfortunately, a whole lot of people like that opt to take supervisory courses and are now running around with iPads passing judgment on those of us who actually do the work. I have seen incontrovertible video evidence of supervisors saying any damn thing they like, whether or not it actually took place in the classroom.

On the other hand, supervisors who are not insane can be supportive and reasonable in a system that is (or is not) supportive and reasonable. I'd like to see a focus on hiring and retaining such people, as I think that would lead to retention of teachers and more effective education of students. When I read Carol Burris I know she's smart and capable. She was a teacher, she was a principal, and now she's a writer and movement leader. You will not see that from any supervisor who checks off boxes and settles personal vendettas via teacher ratings.

Mulgrew's intentions notwithstanding, the issue is not which variety of junk science we use to rate teachers. We can jiggle forms of junk science but it won't fundamentally improve the morale of rank and file. No matter which form of junk science we use, crazy incompetent supervisors can jettison anyone they choose. I've seen brilliant, inspired teachers walk because they simply could not take the pressure of working for people who were nuts.

If UFT leadership wishes to really support us, they need to take a bold stand against unproven nonsense of any stripe. You can't just jiggle around nonsense and hope that today's nonsense is better than yesterday's. At the UFT Executive Board, MORE/ New Action proposed moving to get rid of incompetent supervisors. Leroy Barr likened our proposal to a scatter gun, which I assume to mean would attack supervisors indiscriminately.

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt. If our proposal was not specific enough, let's adjust and tailor it. We could start with little things. Barr mentioned PINI, principals in need of improvement. Let's restore and expand that. Let's re-open the Apples and Worms section in NY teacher and tell members who is and is not doing a good job.

Let's insist that supervisors be not insane. Let's stand together and show working teachers we have their backs. Alternatively, we can continue painting and repainting the lipstick on the pig that is APPR.

If UFT Unity doesn't like our proposal, it behooves them to work with us to find a workable alternative. If not, we'll know that crazy vindictive supervision is not a priority for them.

When the UFT Starts Looking More Like a Parasite...

We are not our union.  I haven't exactly figured out the relationship yet.  I know teachers need the UFT and the UFT needs teachers.  In defense of tenure, I feel the relationship is one of symbiosis, but at other times, as with the Common Core, teacher evaluation systems and treatment of ATRs, the parasitic relationship seems essentially harmful.

We pay our union dues, yet we are not our union.   On Long Island, PJSTA union leader, Beth Dimino, who spoke so passionately against the Core, actually teaches.  She is a veteran science teacher.  She is on the front lines every day.  She sees beyond theories that may look pretty when pushed along by millions of dollars.  She witnesses first hand the harmful effects of the Core.  She never forgets she represents teachers.  She never forgets she serves the kids.  And as such, she is a "mandated reporter" of child abuse--even if it's called the Common Core and its Sugar Daddy has millions to offer.

I realize the exigencies which make it preferable for our top UFT officers to be relieved from classroom duties.  Yet, this seems all the more reason why these same officers should encourage free thought.   This seems all the more reason why they should frequent the halls of schools not to sell contracts, but to pick up on the pulse.  Reps must come to see how membership can best be served and then they must start serving.

Chapter leaders are not our union.  Instead, Unity advises its members to toe the line.  Caucus members must cease and desist from any independent thought that might challenge official leadership positions.  They are advised to steer clear of anti Core positions.  The same Unity that holds the purse strings to lucrative double-pensions pulls the puppet strings of its own members.

Active members are certainly not our Union.   Only 17% of active UFT members bothered to vote in the last elections.  You might think the UFT would be actively concerned that this is a serious sign of illness.  Instead, Unity seems more focused on stymieing the voice of current members and guaranteeing its death grip on power by increasing retiree votes.  More than half of the recent votes in leadership elections came from retirees.

ATRs are not our union.  This one gets me worst of all.  We have let a class of people who worked in some of the hard-to-staff schools linger in limbo.  Many of these teachers are veterans, seasoned professionals, who deserve the best.  They are lumped together in a class repeatedly stereotyped by the media as derelicts.  When a resolution is presented to give ATRs their own chapter given their special interests and second-tier due process status, Leroy Barr has only to speak against it and all must follow.  The resolution is shot down.  Do you think Leroy Barr might feel differently if he walked in the shoes of an ATR?

NYC teachers must be the UFT.  But we are not.  Conditions are so bad today that many do not stick around for even five years.  As long as our dues keep coming, the UFT could pretty much survive without ever caring to ask what we want.  Sometimes it thinks it knows what we wants.  And, sometimes if does know.  But at other times, I'm pretty sure it doesn't care what we want.

Our union is separate from us.  We are besides the point.   I feel more kinship for the PJSTA than my UFT.  I pretty much want from the UFT what the PJSTA wants from NYSUT.  I want a union that is not separate from teachers.  I want a union of teachers, not a union controlling teachers.  And I believe it must start with veteran and career teachers and even some of the passionate recent retirees who understand life on the front lines.  If teachers want to win back education, it must  begin by winning back the UFT.