Evaluation Blues

Yesterday I spoke with a young teacher who told me this was his worst year ever. I asked him why and he told me it was the evaluation system. He says it has him and everyone on edge. I asked whether he had gotten a negative rating and he said no, he hadn't. He was just feeling a general vibe of uneasiness. He told me our school wasn't what it used to be four years ago.

One of the things I found really shocking was that this is a guy who generally complains about nothing, ever. He has this very positive vibe, and this makes me think he must be a great teacher. I would be very happy to have someone like him looking after my kid. He told me that, though there is a whole lot of focus on test scores, that he doesn't worry about that first and foremost. Who knows where our kids come from? Who knows what they have going on at home? It's our job to show them there's a whole world of possibility out there.

I agree with that. Particularly if home is a place of uncertainty, or worse, there's a need for kids to see adults who are getting by. There's a need for kids to see there is possibility, that there is a way to maneuver through this world while managing to stay happy. That's why it's counter-intuitive, not to mention idiotic, to stress out teachers to the breaking point. If this teacher feels stressed out, then so does every teacher.

It's easy for Michael Mulgrew, who has not taught in years, to stand around and say we have fewer bad ratings this year than in years past, so the system is a victory. I can only suppose it's also easy for Mulgrew to ignore the fact that this is the very thing that motivated Andrew Cuomo and his Heavy Hearts to worsen things for working teachers. For Michael Mulgrew, it really doesn't matter whether that plan causes more teachers to get bad ratings. Because there's always a silver lining. Under my leadership, 95% of UFT teachers didn't get fired this year.

Under UFT Unity leadership, the Teacher Improvement Plans were 8% less degrading and humiliating than last year. Under our leadership, 12% fewer teacher meeting weekly with the supervisors who rated them ineffective have contemplated suicide. Under our leadership, we haven't had a catastrophic natural disaster in over two years.

Unfortunately, when you live in a system where absolutely everything is a victory, no one feels it when things are bad. No one knows when things are bad. Things are not permitted to be bad. And the great thing is most representatives have actually signed an oath to perpetually agree that this is the best of all possible worlds, the best of all possible school systems, and the best of all possible evaluation systems negotiated by the best of all possible union leaderships.

I'm not sure what I would say to such people if I had signed the oath. I suppose I could trot out the stat about fewer people getting bad ratings. But I know if the guy I spoke to yesterday is stressed out, so is every working teacher. That's not how you treat role models for children, not if you actually care about those children. 

Extra Credit: Name the bluesman in the photo.

Revive NYSUT Breaks Yet Another Promise, Offers Kudos for Heavy Hearts

Michael Mulgrew thanked the Heavy Hearts of the Assembly for passing the most anti-teacher bill I've ever seen, and the folks at NYSUT hemmed and hawed, giving the impression they were not in line with Punchy Mike. But weeks later, the lovefest continues, and Magee and Pallotta are grateful to the heavy hearts. Why?

Because we've put off the insane evaluation system for a year. In 2015-2016, teachers will likely be rated just as they were the previous year. This is, somehow, a victory. It's ironic, because I watched all the Revive candidates all over the state, and they condemned the current system as an abomination, heaping blame on then-President Richard Iannuzzi. They conveniently and consistently forgot that their biggest and most influential supporter, Punchy Mike Mulgrew, also took part in negotiating this system.

As bad as this system is, the new one will certainly be worse. Cuomo has no qualms about what it's for. He wants to break the public school "monopoly" and he wants to fire more teachers. It's unconscionable that NYSUT leadership gives cover to weasels who call themselves Democrats and attack working people. And while it's better they go in for the kill later than sooner, it certainly doesn't merit our thanks. 

Remember, as it says in their campaign flyer above, Revive NYSUT was against APPR. That means, by my estimation, that they opposed it in its current form. Now, they have not only failed to do that, but they've endorsed a bill that worsens it simply because it does so later rather than now.

This is just another in a series of "clarifications." Revive NYSUT was against Cuomo, but not when he was running in the Working Families Party primary. At no time did Revive make a move to support Zephyr Teachout, at that point the most dire threat to the re-election of our anti-union, anti-teacher anti-Working Families governor. And when Zephyr Teachout decided to oppose him in the Democratic Primary, at no time did Revive support her then either. In the general election Revive sat on their hands and did nothing. Only after he was elected did they react, shocked and stunned that Cuomo continued to be Cuomo.

As for their alleged opposition to Common Core, at no time at the AFT convention did any of Revive's so-called leaders stand up to Punchy Mike's threats to push faces in the dirt if they laid hands on his Common Core. Magee basically suggested that it was Common Core or chaos, and there was no middle ground. Revive claims to favor NYSUT transparency, but their actions are so murky and contradictory that their words mean little or nothing.

VAM is junk science, pure and simple. Dusting it off and dressing it up as a "growth model" is doubletalk, and if we accept it we are as stupid as they think we are. For the sake of the children we are supposed to teach, I hope that isn't true.

Teachers are under attack. NYSUT and UFT need leadership. We're not getting it, and until we do we're going to continue to be handed barrels of garbage with big red bows wrapped around them. Leadership will continue to tell us to roll the barrels into our homes, ignore the stench, and hope for the best.

If we don't demand better we're getting precisely what we deserve.

The Unity Lovefest

There is a lot of self-congratulation from Unity members, both state and city, on Twitter. Leroy Barr was able to come to an agreement with Beth Dimino and pass the "I Refuse" resolution that Unity shot down at the NYC Delegate Assembly. The general theme is Stronger Together and Unity are united against a common enemy, and the general hope appears to be that Stronger Together will become like NYC's New Action, an opposition that works hand in hand with the machine.

That would be unfortunate.

I cannot count the times UFT Unity has let us down. There was one time, in particular, when they were hanging tough on the APPR system. I thought they were doing a great job. I went so far as to invite the COPE guy to my school. He showed up late and did not have time to do his spiel. Instead I was left to improvise and when he showed he only answered questions. First question from my staff, having gone years without a contract, was when were we gonna get one. He said Michael Mulgrew was very smart, and that Mayor Bloomberg could not enact APPR without a contract. One of our delegates and I made a point of increasing our COPE contributions on that basis.

Of course, that delegate and I traveled to Manhattan to vote against APPR, a vote we were sure to lose by a wide margin, and we didn't even get to do that. Instead, with no vote whatsoever, John King was deemed an impartial arbiter by UFT leadership and rank and file got no say whatsoever. In fact we did get APPR without a contract. And when we finally got a contract, that delegate and I were again in Manhattan where we finally got to vote on something.

Now I read that NYC is gonna pay $10 million for charter school rent. I can't remember UFT Unity leadership lifting a finger to fight Cuomo when he shoved that down Bill de Blasio's throat. I can't remember them or Revive NYSUT, which explicitly promised to oppose Cuomo, lifting a finger against him in either two primaries or the general election. I certainly recall Unity's AFT President Randi Weingarten making robocalls for Hochul when the NY Times endorsed Tim Wu for Lieutenant Governor.

Here's the thing--despite Unity campaign literature, people in opposition do not reflexively oppose leadership for no reason. Personally, there's nothing I'd like better than to join the party and support leadership. But when leadership supports things that hurt working teachers and the kids we serve--mayoral control, junk science, two-tier due process, insane and hurtful testing, we can't do the whole, "Thank you sir, may I have another," thing.

And we won't. We aren't for sale. If we were, we'd have joined long ago.

So Unity can pay lip service to Stronger Together. But ST Caucus knows why Unity really ousted Dick Iannuzzi and company, and will not forget, for example, their abject failure to oppose Cuomo and Common Core when it may have meant something.

This is a thing. NYS Unity opened Pandora's Box in their gratuitous grab for absolute power, and all the lip service in the world ain't gonna change that.

Update from Punchy Mike

Hi folks, It’s me,  UFT President “Punchy” Mike Mulgrew, and and usual you'll drag my Common Core from my cold dead arms!  Guess what? I have a new message. A committee in the Senate passed some encouraging legislation to reform NCLB. Ain’t that great? Sure, it hasn’t passed the Senate, and it hasn’t passed the Congress, and it hasn’t gone through any sort of conciliatory processes, and it hasn’t been vetoed by the President we supported with your COPE money, Barack Obama. But If all of those things happen, except the veto, and it still looks anything like the way it does today, NY State won’t be required by law to pass bills like the one they just did.

Of course, even if all that stuff happens and the bill passes as written,  it won't mean NY will have to repeal any of the law they've already passed, or that Cuomo's reformy pals will stop giving him money to push this stuff, but I'm Punchy Mike, not Gloomy Gus, so let's not dwell on stuff like that.

As long as we're not dwelling on stuff, will you please stop reminding me that I said that we had stopped Governor Cuomo dead in his tracks, and I thanked the legislators for passing that bill. In fact, I’d like you to just not remember that, and pretend it didn’t happen. Because now, I’ve taken your COPE dollars, and made a commercial critical of Governor Cuomo. So that should prove once and for all which side I’m on.

Now the blogs, which I don’t read and about which I know absolutely nothing, will no doubt say things like we blocked Zephyr Teachout’s nomination in the Working Families Party, and even suggest we threatened to withhold funding and perhaps end the party altogether.  Now let me be clear. While I have no idea what the hell is in these blogs, I have to characterize them as purveyors of myth. Now I say that to be nice, because I’m just a regular blue collar construction guy with no impulse control whatsoever, and I don’t want to call them a bunch of lowlife stinking liars. That would be not nice.

You see, in my position, a guy has to be careful, I mean, you send out an email to tens of thousands of people thanking the legislature for their hard work in passing a blatantly anti-teacher bill, and saying that we have won, and all of a sudden people jump to the conclusion you support the bill. Well, it meant nothing of the kind. All it meant was what it said, and I have to tell you I’m just a little bit miffed at those dirtbag bloggers, who I never read, coming to conclusions that just because I said that stuff it was what I really meant? I mean, who can really see into a man’s soul? Isn’t there a deeper meaning? I don’t know, because I’m just a regular blue collar guy.

That's why I'm really sick of those damn bloggers, who I never read, coming to conclusions that just because I don’t call opponents to resolutions that I don’t follow Robert’s Rules or democracy. Some even suggest voting is rigged. So now I’m very careful, because I can get into trouble. You see, that means I’m evolving. So don’t believe them when they say I support bills simply because I praise them and thank people for passing them. I’m evolving.

So maybe I wrote the thing saying we had beaten back Governor Cuomo and thanking the legislature for voting for the anti-teacher bill, and maybe I said our hard work had paid off, but that is like, so two weeks ago. Today I’m spending your money to make an ad attacking the governor, and that’s where you should be focused.

Remember, when those bloggers, who I never read, say things like we should’ve attacked Governor Cuomo during the WFP nomination procedure, during the Democratic primary, or during the general election, they’re full of crap, or rather purveyors of myth. Stop looking backward, and start looking forward.

In summary, remember, committee passes bill, good, current commercial, good, punchy prose from Punchy Mike, good, past does not exist except as modified by us, good, pro-Heavy Hearts email in memory hole, good, a thousand points of light, good, and God bless the United Federation of Teachers.

A Tough Sell for Punchy Mike

NYSUT analysis that follows was sent to me via an email list I'm on. I'll preface it with UFT President Michael Mulgrew's commentary on the new legislation from Andrew Cuomo's Heavy Hearts Club Band:

And now all of our hard work is paying dividends. The governor's Draconian agenda has, in large part, been turned back. We want to thank the Assembly and the Senate for standing up for our schools and school communities. 

Read it for yourself and let me know whether you agree. It might look long, but you need to know everything.

NYSUT Preliminary Analysis of S.2006-B/A.3006-B

Effective date - the new APPR will apply in the 2015-16 school year.

Student Performance and Teacher Performance Measures:

-will dramatically increase the weight of state standardized testing, increase use of tests developed or approved by SED or outside vendors in the evaluation system, and increase use of state growth models in evaluations.

-Teachers will not receive a score but instead will be rated using a matrix approach, with two subcomponents - student performance and teacher observations.

-if you receive an ineffective rating in the student performance side of the matrix, you cannot achieve an effective rating overall; the most you can attain is a developing rating.

-if the district and union choose an optional second assessment detailed below, and you receive an ineffective rating on student performance, you cannot receive anything but an ineffective rating overall, a disincentive to choose the optional second assessment.

-For tested teachers, the student performance subcomponent will be:

(1) use of a state growth score

and

(2) an optional second state-provided growth score on a state-created or administered test or a growth score based on a state-designed supplemental assessment, calculated using a state-provided or approved growth model. The use of the optional student performance subcomponent is subject to collective bargaining, but is limited to the choices in (2) above.

-For non-tested teachers, the student performance subcomponent will be:

(1) a student learning objective consistent with a goal-setting process determined or developed by the commissioner, that results in a student growth score

and

(2) an optional second state-provided growth score on a state-created or administered test or a growth score based on a state-designed supplemental assessment, calculated using a state-provided or approved growth model. As with the tested teachers, whether to use the optional second measure is subject to collective bargaining.

N.B.

The state-designed supplemental assessment, that can be used in the optional second student performance subcomponent is defined “as a selection of state tests or assessments developed or designed by the state education department, or that the state education department purchased or acquired from (i) another state; (ii) an institution of higher education; or (iii) a commercial or not-for-profit entity, provided that such entity must be objective and may not have a conflict of interest or appearance of a conflict of interest; such definition may include tests or assessments that have been previously designed or acquired by local districts, but only if the state education department significantly modifies growth targets or scoring bands for such tests or assessments or otherwise adapts the test or assessment to the state education department's requirements.”

This language essentially eliminates any truly locally developed tests or assessments, or other locally developed tools, from the evaluation system.

-Scoring bands and scoring ranges will be set by the commissioner, through regulation.

Prohibited Items:

The legislation expressly prohibits measures of student achievement that are not test-based, such as evidence of student development and performance derived from lesson plans, other artifacts of teacher practice, and student portfolios, use of an instrument for parent or student feedback, use of professional goal-setting as evidence of teacher or principal effectiveness, or any district or regionally-developed assessment that has not been approved by the department.

Independent Evaluators:

The legislation mandates the use of so-called “independent” evaluators, which could result in someone with limited or no knowledge of a teacher, or the school, determining the fate of a teacher or school. Observations will be conducted by both the school building principal, and an outside evaluator, which could either be

-       a trained evaluator from another building within the district,

-       a trained evaluator from another district,

-       or a trained evaluator with no affiliation with any school district.

Collective Bargaining:

-significantly reduces the role of collective bargaining. Student performance measures (formerly the local 20 percent) and observations were previously developed locally, through collective bargaining, to ensure the appropriate measure of student achievement and teacher performance at the district or building level. This is almost entirely eliminated, with SED having new powers to develop evaluation assessments and expanded use of growth scores, set student performance targets and goals, and drastically changes locally developed assessments to a new growth model.

-prohibits use of non-test based measures from being used in the student performance subcomponent, and non-observation measures being used in the teacher evaluation subcomponent.

Collective bargaining was retained in two areas:

-       whether to use a second student performance measure (optional subcomponent),

-       and in the event that the second measure is used, which measure to use.

However, the universe of measures that can be used is limited to state tests or previously selected local measures that the Commissioner modifies. The implementation of the greatly limited teacher observation measures can be bargained.

Ineffective Teachers:

Where practicable, a student cannot be taught by two ineffective teachers in a row. If a school district deems it impracticable to comply, the district must seek a waiver from the department from this requirement. This waiver process will be determined by regulation.

State Aid and APPR Plan Approval:

-requires school districts to receive approval for a new APPR plan that complies with the new statute by November 15, 2015, in order to receive their scheduled 2015-16 school aid increase or any increase in state aid thereafter. There was a previously enacted statute to ensure that the most recent approved APPR plans would remain in effect until a new plan is approved by SED. However, this new legislation eliminates these protections and districts will not receive their 2015-16 increase in school aid over their 2014-15 aid levels unless the district has a new APPR plan approved by SED by November 15, 2015.

Existing Collective Bargaining Agreements:

-provides that all collective bargaining agreements entered into after April 1, 2015, must comply with the new APPR law, unless the agreement relates to the 2014-15 school year. The law states that it does not abrogate any conflicting provisions in collective bargaining agreements in effect on April 1, 2015, but that upon expiration and entry into a successor agreement, new agreements must comply with the new law.

However, as noted above, for a school district to receive its school aid increase, an APPR plan compliant with the new APPR law must be agreed to by November 15, 2015. Thus, the school aid linkage virtually eliminates any collective bargaining protection.

Regents and Commissioner Authority:

While many of the new APPR procedures are outlined in statute, the Commissioner and Regents, through regulation adoption, will set scoring bands within subcomponents, and targets for SLOs.

Regulations and guidelines must be adopted no later than June 30, 2015 by the Regents to implement this new APPR system, “after consulting with experts and practitioners in the fields of education, economics and psychometrics and taking into consideration the parameters set forth in the letter from the Chancellor of the Board of Regents and acting commissioner dated December 31, 2014, to the New York State Director of State Operations.” This letter detailed a support for an APPR system with 40 percent of a teacher’s score tied to the state exams.

The commissioner must also establish a process for public comment for the new regulations, and is mandated to consult, in writing, with the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, currently Arne Duncan.

TENURE/PROBATION

-mandates four-year probationary periods for new teachers hired after July 1, 2015, with the requirement that a teacher attain an effective evaluation rating for at least three of the four years. Further, if a teacher achieves ineffective in their fourth year, they cannot achieve tenure.

A board can agree to extend probation by one year for teachers who have not achieved three effectives or who are ineffective in their last probation year.

For teachers who have achieved tenure in another district and have not been dismissed from the other district, they will remain in probationary status for three years, so long as the teacher did not receive an ineffective in their last year at the prior school.

N.B.

-a school board will now have the “unfettered” right to terminate a probationary teacher for any constitutionally permissible reason, including performance based reasons, during probation without regard to the teachers APPR rating.

DUE PROCESS/3020-a

-mandates that two consecutive ineffective ratings on APPR will be prima facie evidence of incompetence, rebutted only by clear and convincing evidence.

-a new 3020-b process is outlined, “Streamlined removal procedures for teachers rated ineffective,” which will apply to teachers and principals who receive two or more consecutive annual ineffective ratings.

-mandates that school boards bring 3020-a charges for three consecutive ineffective ratings, with fraud or mistake the only defense available. There is no discretion for a board to not bring charges for three consecutive ineffective ratings.

-A teacher convicted of a violent felony against a child pursuant to penal law section 70.02, when the intended victim was a child, will have their certification revoked.

-3020-a proceedings, brought after July 1, 2015, will be before a single hearing officer. There is no carve-out for Part 83 proceedings.

-For 3020-a proceedings where charges of misconduct constituting physical or sexual abuse of a student are brought, the hearing shall be conducted before and by a single hearing officer in an expedited hearing, which must commence within seven days after the pre-hearing conference and must be completed within sixty days after the pre-hearing conference.

-For 3020-a proceedings, a child witness, under fourteen years of age, may be permitted to testify through the use of live, two-way closed-circuit television, as explained in section 65.00 of the criminal procedure law. The hearing officer must provide the employee with an opportunity to be heard, and determine by clear and convincing evidence that such child witness would suffer serious mental or emotional harm which would substantially impair such child's ability to communicate if required to testify at the hearing without the use of live, two-way closed-circuit television. The hearing officer must also find that the use of such live, two-way closed-circuit television will diminish the likelihood or extent of such harm.

-For all 3020-a cases, hearing officers must further give “serious consideration to the penalty recommended by the employing board,” and if the hearing officer rejects the recommended penalty, the rejection must be outlined in a written determination based on the record.

RECEIVERSHIP

-adds a new section, section 211-f, to the education law regarding the takeover and restructuring of failing schools by external receivers. It allows the Commissioner, under given circumstances, to place a school into receivership where a receiver will manage and operate the school, subject to annual review by the Commissioner, until such time as the school has improved sufficiently.

-allows for the state takeover in schools;

-27 “priority” schools that have been struggling for more than 10 years would have only one year to dramatically turnaround,

and

-other “priority” schools would have two years to turn around, until an outside receiver is appointed to control the school.

-New priority schools in 2016-17 are automatically eligible for receivership.

Failing Schools:

After being identified as a “failing school” or “persistently failing school” for a certain period of time, a district may be subject to a performance review by SED which may result in the Commissioner placing the school into receivership.

A “failing school” generally is one in the “lowest achieving 5 percent” of schools under the state’s “accountability system” for at least three consecutive years or identified as a “priority school” for such period.

A “persistently failing school” generally is one in the “lowest achieving public schools in the state” for 10 consecutive school years. There are two ways of being found to be a “persistently failing school,” each with its own look back. Such “persistently failing schools” either have been “priority schools” during that period starting in 2012-13 school year or a “school requiring academic progress year 5, 6 or 7 or a “school in restructuring” for each applicable year from the 2006-07 school year to the 2011-12 school year. Special act schools are excluded.

Path to Receivership:

The path to receivership differs slightly for “persistently failing schools” and “failing schools.”

For schools identified as “persistently failing,” the local district shall continue to operate the school for an additional year provided that there is an approved intervention model or comprehensive education plan in place. The superintendent in this case shall have all the powers of a receiver. At the end of the year SED will conduct a performance review to determine whether the designation of persistently failing should be removed, the school should remain under control of the superintendent, or the school should be placed into receivership. But if the district makes “demonstrable improvement” it shall remain under district operation for another year, subject to annual review, with the same three possible outcomes, one of which being placed in receivership.

For schools identified as “failing schools,” the local district shall continue to operate the school for an additional two years provided there is an approved intervention model or comprehensive education place in place. The superintendent in this case shall have all the powers of a receiver. At the end of the two-year period SED will conduct a performance review to determine whether the designation of persistently failing should be removed, the school should remain under control of the superintendent, or the school should be placed into receivership. But if the district makes “demonstrable improvement” it shall remain under district operation for another year, subject to annual review, with the same three possible outcomes, one of which being placed in receivership.

N.B.

The district must notify parents that a school may be placed into receivership and hold a public meeting or hearing for the purpose of discussing the performance of the school and the construct of receivership.

Definition:

A “community engagement team” will be established by the district upon designation as failing or persistently failing. This must include community stakeholders such as principal, parents, teachers, staff, and students. The team will develop recommendations and solicit public engagement. The team will present its recommendations “periodically” to the school’s leadership and the receiver.

Appointment of a Receiver:

Upon determination by the Commissioner that the school will be placed in receivership, the school district shall appoint an independent receiver, subject to approval of the Commissioner.

The receiver will manage and operate all aspects of the school and develop and implement a school intervention plan, considering recommendations of a community engagement team.

The receiver may be a non-profit, another school district, or an individual.

The receiver will have the power to supersede any decision, policy or regulation of the district that conflicts with the school intervention plan.

The receiver will have authority to review proposed school district budgets and modify them to conform to the school intervention plan.

The receiver will contract with the Commissioner and be paid by SED, unless there is an open administrative staffing line at the district and the receiver will be taking on the responsibilities of that position, in which case the receiver will be paid by the district.

School Intervention Plan:

Consultation:

The receiver will create a school intervention plan. Before developing plan, the receive shall “consult with” local stakeholders including the board of education, the superintendent, the principal, teachers assigned to the school and their collective bargaining representation, administrators assigned to the school and their collective bargaining representative, parents, social service and mental health agencies, students as appropriate, career and workforce development programs as appropriate, pre-k programs as appropriate, representatives of local higher ed as appropriate and the “school takeover team.”

Considerations:

In creating the plan, the receiver shall consider the recommendations of the “community enragement team,” include provisions intended to maximize the rapid academic achievement of students at the school, ensure the plan addresses school leadership and capacity, school leader practices and decisions, curriculum development and support, teacher practices and decisions, student social and emotional developmental health, and family and community engagement. The receiver shall base the plan on the findings of any recent diagnostic review or assessment and student outcome data including, student achievement growth data based on state measures, other measures of student achievements, student promotion and graduation rates, achievement and growth data for subgroups, and long-term and short-term suspension rates.

Elements:

The receiver must include the following in the plan: measures to address social service, health and mental health needs of students in the school and their families in order to help students arrive and remain at school ready to learn, provided that this may include mental health and substance abuse screening; measures to improve or expand access to child welfare services and, as appropriate, services in the school community to promote a safe and secure learning environment; measures to provide greater access to career and technical education and workforce development services provided to students in the school and their families, in order to provide students and families with meaningful employment skills and opportunities; measures to address achievement gaps for English language learners, students with disabilities and economically disadvantaged students; measures to address school climate and positive behavior support, including mentoring and other youth development programs; and a budget for the school intervention plan.

Goals:

The plan must include measurable annual goals with respect to student attendance, student discipline including short-term and long-term suspension, student safety, student promotion and graduation and drop-out rates, student achievement and growth on state measures, progress in areas of academic underperformance, progress among subgroups, reduction of achievement gaps, development of college and career readiness, parent and family engagement, building a culture of academic success among students, building a culture of student support and success among faculty and staff, using developmentally appropriate child assessments from Pre-K to 3, and measures of student learning.

The receiver “shall” convert schools to “community schools” to provide expanded health, mental health and other services to the students.

In addition, the receiver “may” expand, alter or replace the curriculum and program offerings, including

(i)                     the implementation of research-based early literacy programs, early interventions for struggling readers and the teaching of advanced placement courses or other rigorous nationally or internationally recognized courses, if the school does not already have such programs or courses;

(ii)                    (ii) replace teachers and administrators, including school leadership who are not appropriately certified or licensed;

(iii)                   (iii) increase salaries of current or prospective teachers and administrators to attract and retain high-performing teachers and administrators;

(iv)                   (iv) establish steps to improve hiring, induction, teacher evaluation, professional development, teacher advancement, school culture and organizational structure;

(v)                    (v) reallocate the uses of the existing budget of the school;

(vi)                   (vi) expand the school day or school year or both of the school;

(vii)                 (vii) for a school that offers the first grade, add pre-kindergarten and full-day kindergarten classes, if the school does not already have such classes;

(viii)                (viii) in accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c) of this subdivision, to abolish the positions of all members of the teaching and administrative and supervisory staff assigned to the failing or persistently failing school and terminate the employment of any building principal assigned to such a school, and require such staff members to reapply for their positions in the school if they so choose;

(ix)                   (ix) include a provision of a job-embedded professional development for teachers at the school, with an emphasis on strategies that involve teacher input and feedback;

(x)                     (x) establish a plan for professional development for administrators at the school, with an emphasis on strategies that develop leadership skills and use the principles of distributive leadership;

(xi)                   and/or (xi) order the conversion of a school in receivership that has been designated as failing or persistently failing pursuant to this section into a charter school.

-Upon designation of a school as failing or persistently failing, tenure and seniority rights are modified. Two ineffectives at any time in the teacher’s career defeats seniority rights of that teacher. The teacher with the lowest APPR rating is laid off first. Seniority is only used to break ties.

The receiver “may” abolish all teacher positions and require them to re-apply. The receiver shall define new positions for the school aligned with the school intervention plan.

For hiring teachers, the receiver shall convene a staffing committee including the receiver, two appointees of the receiver and two appointees selected by the school staff or their collective bargaining unit. The staffing committee will determine whether former school staff reapplying for positions are qualified for the new positions. The receiver shall have full discretion regarding hiring decisions but must fill at least 50 percent of the new positions with the most senior former staff whom the committee deems qualified.

Remaining vacancies filled by receiver in consultation with staffing committee. Anyone not rehired placed on a PEL*. Teachers rehired maintain prior status.

*(Editor’s note: This is a Preferred Employment List for Layoff.  It does not apply to New York City where State Law 2588 describes layoff by citywide seniority in licence only.)

In order to maximize the rapid achievement of students, the receiver “may request” that the collective bargaining unit representing teachers negotiate a receivership agreement modifying the applicable collective bargaining agreements. Bargaining is to conclude in 30 days with ratification within 10 days.

Any unresolved issues will be resolved by the Commissioner within 5 days. For failing but not persistently failing schools, there is an option for a AAA conciliator prior to the Commissioner.

Within 6 months of the receiver’s appointment, a final school intervention plan must be submitted to the Commissioner for approval.

The plan shall be for a period of not more than three years. During that time any additional components or goals must be approved by the commissioner.

The receiver shall make quarterly progress reports.

The Commissioner will evaluate each school with a receiver annually.

If the school is not meeting its goals, the Commissioner may modify the plan.

Upon the expiration of a plan, the commissioner shall evaluate the school and determine either to renew the plan, appoint a new receiver, or take the school off the failing school list.

TEACHER REGISTRATION

Beginning with the 2016-17 school year, all holders of a professional teaching certificate, or Level III Teaching Assistant certificate will now be required to complete 100 hours of continuing education and leader education every five years. These certificate holders will also be required to register with SED every five years to prove they have met these requirements. A teacher may not practice unless these requirements are fulfilled. In addition, all certificate holders will be required to register with SED every five years even though the new continuing education provisions only apply to holders of professional teaching certificates or Level III Teaching Assistant certificates.

The allowable activities which qualify for these 100 hours are determined by SED and the department is directed to “issue rigorous standards for courses, programs, and activities.” Districts may collectively bargain more hours if they so choose. The activities are supposed to “promote the professionalization of teaching and be closely aligned to district goals for student performance.”

The current regulatory requirements for holders of the professional certificate must complete 175 hours of professional development and holders of the Level III Teaching Assistant certificate must complete 75 hours every five years in order to maintain certification. These requirements are replaced by this new 100 hour requirement.

DA Report--Mulgrew Warns Against Opt-Out

Michael Mulgrew—says we have a lot to do today. Wants to discuss work union has to do and how we’ve done it. Says we’ve always been passionate, tough, and that intelligence in strategies have caused us to grow. Also wants to talk about tests. Seems disorganized.

Speaks of how he resisted working for union, was too important for him. Was intrigued by offer of going to Albany and discussing NCLB. Mulgrew calls himself a ferocious reader. Said the good thing about NCLB was that it disaggregates students by different categories. Said it was good that it talked about how children were achieving, and how it focused on achievement gap. Said results would become yearly testing, would punish teachers of the neediest, and that he anticipated this problem.

Mulgrew said he recognized that ESEA money would be deprived from schools who didn’t follow programs. He says he anticipated school closings. Said it would discourage teachers of high needs kids and that he argued a lot about it because that’s what he does. He walks around and argues with people. He was told GW wouldn’t be reelected and lost faith in politics.

Mulgrew speaks of Obama’s new plan to avert all schools failing under NCLB, offered waivers. Race to the Top. Said GOP and Dems all said NCLB was awful but other side prevented reason.

Mulgrew speaks of groups that want to privatize and destroy union, groups that don’t want public ed. to work. Mentions bad rollout of CCSS. Says he predicted issues with CCSS. Says not hard to figure out when you see this and you are an educator. Calls Bloomberg a liar. Says he stood up and called him that when people told him not to.

Speaks of rest of state, with eval. before ours, having large capacities of bad ratings. Says they had formulas that placed their members at risk. Says he was warned not to use 100 point system, but he couldn’t prevent it because pols likened it to student tests.

Says we did what was best year one, making sure people would not be harmed, had lowest % of bad ratings in state. Says state ed. dept. didn’t look good when all the kids failed test, so state simply adjusted dial ,made for better teacher ratings. Says we are going through an evolution in education that will not stop this year. Says we believe tests are not to be used for stakes. Says if  UFT’s Frank Carruci were governor, we would still have test eval. because of federal funding.

Says NYC receives largest title 1 funding in US. Says first and foremost issue was federal law, that we cannot stop any of this until we change it. Acknowledges Obama and Duncan made it worse. Says we may be able to change law because pols of both parties worry about elections, having gotten nothing done. Says ESEA may be where that happens. Randi took the lead and they worked with people, including Lamar Alexander.

Says as they are negotiating with DC, they have Cuomo deciding despite bad rollout, massive frustration wants to increase use of tests, and that’s why we call him “Governor Genius.” Says Cuomo is getting just desserts, all of this will be blamed on him.

However, standardized tests are the only thing recognized by feds, and if we don’t give them we will forfeit title 1, 2, and 3 funding. UFT got wording bipartisan agreement in Senate that feds will no longer mandate testing to be used in eval. in US. Mulgrew gets applause. Also got agreement there will be no mandate to close or turn them to charter schools. Says agreement says testing will be used only for measurement purposes, will require standards but won’t care which standards.

Says ESL students will get three years before they are required to be tested in English, instead of one. Says nothing about this being a one-house bill.

Says we wait for things to move in our direction, that bill is being fast-tracked. Says NY US Senators are on board and that in may be passed in May. This will be when we work on Congress. Says important that people who hate us didn’t know about this during construction, and that we always have to be smart about the work that we do. Asks that people thank Randi.

This is the game-changer, he says. Mary Poppins would have to give test if governor.

Recalls three major battles with Bloomberg trying to lay off teachers. Says we fought him back each and every time, including 400 million dollar cut, in which Christine Quinn was our partner. Says ESEA funding for us is 900 million and if we lost it, it would be catastrophic.

Calls our fight with Cuomo successful in that his approval rating is down. Says we first had to get people on our side. Recalls Bloomberg’s precipitous drop in approval rating and says that’s why Klein was fired. Says he did us great favor with Cathie Black. Was great victory for UFT in that we did nothing.

Says we had our strategies, worked hard, that approval rating is key. Mulgrew says individual merit pay is not there, but that it may be negotiated. Says that was always a right, but will not happen while he is leader. Says charters were pushed out of budget. Says tax credits pushed out.

We made funding a major issue, and from outside it looks like we won, but state has continued with funding inequality. Says we got 20% more per kid but rich districts got 50% more per kid, and that this has worsened inequality. Says he told clergy this may result in legal action. We have largest % of needy kids and ed. should be based on need.

Says we halted Cuomo’s receivership plan for scores of schools. Says “out of time” schools have one year to show progress, others have two years. Says legislature should not determined proper growth, and that they have pushed this to NYSED and Regents. Says we know the law, and no matter what NYSED does, must be approved by Regents. We have worked two years to shift Regents to board of educators. We are now comfortable to push things to SED with Regents oversight. Says they will not be dictated to by SED.

On teacher eval, gov wanted 50% test scores, we wanted removal of 100 point test scores. Says he wanted to remove anomalies. When some areas were effective and others were not. Says he pushed everything to SED to avoid legislature, and now former teachers will do it. Says this will require a lot of work with Regents, including public meetings.

Says Cuomo’s ed. rating rivals Bloomberg’s, says we achieved our goal of public support, that opt-out is a public choice. Says feds clearly have authority to remove ESEA funding from districts that don’t have 95% participation rate, that there is no waver. Says we receive a lot of ESEA funding and that we have business smarts. Parents should opt out, we need better tests, not Pearson, teachers should design tests, he says. Says ratings depend on SED and their magic dial. As result we have no idea how much kids are achieving. No one knows what, if anything tests mean.

Says after these tests we still need to assess kids to know where they are, and that we are therefore moving toward federal regulation. We want state to be in control, he says, and to work toward what we know. Says it is tough because there is so much anger. Says he is not tester, but project based learning teacher.

Refers to Cuomo saying kids fail and teachers didn’t that it was nonsense. Says Cuomo asked what industry evaluates itself, and Mulgrew says every industry. Says Cuomo thought admin was unfairly biased toward us.

Says we will negotiate with SED, that there is a lot of leeway despite what people say. Says everyone said everyone would be rated poorly, and that didn’t happen, but that we must be ready for change because there will be multiple changes. Says SED may or may not mitigate, but that there are no percentages, that we have to get used to evolution of education and teacher eval. Says we have lowest number of poorly rated teachers and that people said here the world was ending.

Says we understand a teacher is 10% of what a child achieves, and we are at war with those who ignore other 90%. Says he doesn’t know if he should go to the matrix, the box. Makes joke about e-i-e-i-o. Is hilarious.

Speaks of school in which teachers rated poorly, but were rated high on student test scores. Ridicules good old days when principal completely controlled eval, and says with box student achievement can trump principal’s judgment. Says it’s not 50-50 because high grades take precedence over low ones. Shows box. Looks like Sudoko.

Says there is less possibility of poor rating, and that student achievement can trump principal judgment, and principal judgment can trump bad achievement. Says we are starting to understand it. Says many letters. I-I becomes popular.

Says 80% NYC teachers were effective in testing before a single observation. Says we are not gaming system. Says if he talks about it too much that people will say we are gaming system.

Says purpose of eval. is growth, development and support, but people focus too much on these things. Says eval. system should be constructive professional practice and that he did enough on the box. Says test scores could only be negative, but now they can save people.

Oddly, I’ve been in UFT meetings where reps said the same of the last system, the one Mulgrew says this improves on.

Says he’s sorry he did all of this, but that everyone should have this info. Says we are most important local in country, but that we have more on our shoulders than any other, that we will win or lose the fight for public ed. Says if renewal schools improve, we win the war. Says if we don’t win, it’s all up for grabs. Says we have to do our business smart, again. Says our predecessors were always three steps ahead.

Says what happened in last few days will help us to beat up governor, but none of it matters if we don’t move our school system. Says ESEA funding is important, and that people don’t want mayor and teachers working together, that we are their biggest fear because we may succeed.

Says 73 schools want to enter PROSE program, in addition to 62 there. Says this will be significant, thanks people who contributed. Thanks those who worked on renewal schools. Thanks teachers who proctored NYSESLAT with no help for SED on new exam they didn’t know.

Says we need to make sure we are smart, that we always need to be smart. Says we have more battles. Asks us to focus on moving our profession to a better place and that NYC will show how educators move things the right way.

Says May brings 3% raise. Gets applause.

Leroy Barr—please fill out teacher surveys. Encourages support, participation in rally for $15 minimum wage. Says CL elections should be in May, that it’s easier. Anyone in school first Monday can run and nominate, including ATRS. Next DA May 20th.

Questions—what about CFE? Mulgrew says if it’s up to him, he will go to court. Says CFE establishes formula based on need. Says we will vote on whether to go to court.

Charters are not backfilling. What are we doing to tell people? Mulgrew happy NYT reported on Moskowitz. Says all that info is given to press constantly. Battle on charters is now, he says, and getting it pushed out of budget was victory. Says need language would have fined charters. Says we have a charter division and that there are unionized charters. Says if we have to pay for their space why do they have 14 kids in room while we have 28 or whatever? Says Eva must have been disappointed.

NYSESLAT, CL says training gave much info, but no exemplars or practice test. What can we do to help kids? Mulgrew—it was joint training because they would be ashamed if we held it alone. There is no practice test because they are unprepared. Says educators would know better. We are moving on getting that done, he says. Our ESL population is exploding. Says there is special teacher training program. Will produce 30 teachers but we need 3,000. Says problems are ELLs and space.

Eval—says there was grace period where things didn’t count, and wonders will there be one on new one? Mulgrew says we have had two, will have third next year, not good educational policy. Says we need flexibility. Makes wisecrack about how what he says will be out on a blog and probably is already. Speaks of possibility of peer eval, says it is in law.

Resolution—Evelyn de Jesus—that Regents hold public hearings on teacher eval.—placed on this month’s agenda overwhelmingly. Motion it be moved to number two. Passed.

Resolution 1—Janella Hinds rises to speak in favor of  proper use of assessments, system all students need, that uses variety of assessments, that are fair, developmentally appropriate. This is UFT testing res. Jonathan Halabi offers amendment about multiple measures, moves phrase “to evaluate teachers and gauge success of schools”  be stricken.  Says student tests should not rate teachers or schools.
Other amendment—change “standardized” assessments to “state-mandated” assessments.Says word “standardized” enables Pearson, and that said tests are discriminatory. Says tests trick kids by using language they’ve never seen before. Says diagnostic tests must be built by teachers and used meaningfully. Says immediate feedback is crucial.

Marjorie Stamberg—against all educational principles to use test for students to evaluate teachers, says we should come out against CCSS, Mulgrew stops her.

Mulgrew says he gets in trouble for this and must therefore ask whether anyone will speak against amendments.

Motion to table—second—motion not tabled.

Francesca Gomes—raises opposition to resolution, as it validates standardized testing. Says if people are in fear of us, why are we asking for tiny insufficient changes, that they won’t protect good teachers against bad admin. Says standardized testing will always be a bad system, and that we should not validate tests. Says NAACP Prez in Seattle opposes them and says that opt out movement is important. Supports opt-out, Mulgrew rules her out of order.

Mulgrew says now that there has been speaker against, time to call the motion.

Amendment to remove “standardized” passes.

Amendment to change multiple measures passes.

Amended resolution carries.

Motion to extend 5 minutes. Passes. Mulgrew says we only have 2 left.

Reso for public hearings  Passes.

The Glory of Apathy

Every day I read the news and I feel like I'm in the middle of a Fellini movie. Cuomo makes a big threat, that 50% of our evaluation will be based on test scores, and the other 50% will be observations. He also says that, because administrators tend to actually like the teachers they hire, that someone else must rate the teachers. He wanted to give outside administrators 35 of the 50%, but now it looks like, in the only concession to that plan, it may be a little less.

This happens while Cuomo's popularity is at its absolute low ebb. The Democratic Heavy Hearts Club declares, gee, we didn't want to do this, but what the hell we're gonna do it anyway. Assemblyman Ron Kim, who I watched give an inspirational pro-teacher speech in a Bayside UFT forum, drops his professed ideals and votes for it anyway. Mulgrew declares it a victory and thanks the folks who voted for this atrocity. Next month at the DA he'll speak to rousing cheers, because no one who wants the $749 for the glorious Buffalo trip is allowed to do differently.

Most teachers in NYC are not paying attention.  Everyone knows that Mulgrew and his people are gonna win the next election no matter what, and most working UFT members will once again not bother to fill out a ballot. NYSUT's President Karen Magee can keep giving mouth service to opt out, and she can oppose the Cuomo plan, but where the hell was she when the guy was actually running for governor? Where was she when Zephyr Teachout wanted the Working Families nomination? And where will she be when Mulgrew decides he needs someone more cooperative in 2017?

There are distinct advantages of not paying attention. You don't have to fret over what evaluation system they're using this year. All you have to do is read the UFT guide on whatever the hell it is that's supposed to be good teaching this year. Then you do it and hope you don't get fired. After all, as Cuomo said, lots of teachers haven't been fired. In fact this is actually the first year UFT teachers can face 3020a over this, and we won't know until September just how many that will be.

Of course, one measure of how good this system is would be how many teachers were rated ineffective year one and then did better year two. That would reflect how many teachers were actually helped by this system. If a lot of them were, perhaps it means the system worked at some level. Of course, not putting people under the amazing stress of having their jobs at risk might have worked out better. Who knows? Certainly not anyone who thinks it's a good idea to change APPR in NYC three years in a row. That's a terrible idea. Just as you get accustomed to a new system, it's history, garbage, out the window and on the trash heap.

For the majority of UFT members, the ones who don't get involved, they've spent a lot less of their valuable time focused on this. They've been home spending time with their families, catching up on TV shows, visiting the sights, and enjoying themselves a lot more than those of us who've been reading the papers, going to demonstrations, and calling our elected representatives.

As long as most people aren't going to actually do anything, Cuomo can do whatever he likes and his deep-pocketed supporters will be happy. As long as most people aren't going to do anything, NYSUT and UFT can go to conventions, make speeches, and enable Cuomo and his BFFs to continue with their destructive plans. The only downside, really, is that our kids will have to suffer through test prep instead of receiving an education. That, and their job opportunities will be severely limited once they graduate from test prep.

But if you can live with that, then, hey, roll out the hammock and take a nap. No sense getting all in a tizzy over things you aren't gonna bother to change anyway.

The Genius of UFT Leadership

It's not easy to be right all the time. I'm not. I make mistakes, and when I do, I have to say things like, "I'm sorry. I screwed up." I've had to say that to students, to friends and family, and at times I've said it right here in this space.

But the great thing about being union leadership is never having to say you're sorry. For example, when APPR came out, it was fantastic. Mulgrew boasted of how the great thing about it was that we could negotiate local measures. How cool was that? And then, when in fact he could not negotiate local measures, he left it in the hands of the reformiest of the reformiest, John King. And after the system came out, Bloomberg said he'd gotten the most vindictive system in the state and he didn't have to lay out a cent for it.

I remember this distinctly, because the UFT had been holding out for a while, which I thought was a good thing. In fact, when a UFT rep showed up to a meeting at our school, he told us leadership was very smart, and that we'd certainly get a contract. Otherwise, he said, Bloomberg couldn't have his evaluation. It had to be part of the contract. Now this particular UFT rep could have been improvising, but I doubt it. It turned out we got the evaluation system well before we got a contract, and I don't need to remind readers of this blog that we're gonna be waiting on money most city workers got in 2010 until 2020. I'm amazed the Post hates de Blasio so much. He, the lefty liberal whatever, negotiated the most meager contract in my living memory and the Post should be kissing his ring.

Of course, we renegotiated the evaluation system. The first time, Bloomberg wanted only 7 Danielson domains but we held out for all of them and it was a great victory. The next time, we negotiated only 8 Danielson domains and that was also a great victory. One thing I've learned about leadership is that absolutely every move they make is a great victory. Another thing I've noticed is that leadership judges themselves and their critics by the same criteria. Since they have so many great victories, anyone who disagrees is crazy, and ought to have their faces punched and pushed in the dirt. Such are the life lessons of Michael Mulgrew, regularly shared with the faithful at the Delegate Assembly, and of course at the conventions, attended by only the elite 800 who swear to abide by said lessons.

At a recent DA, Mulgrew ridiculed those who disagreed with junk science APPR by giving percentages of bad ratings. It was only one or two percent ineffective, and 5 or 6 developing. This was a good thing, said our leader, not only because it was a small number, but also because it was a bigger number than much of the state. Our model, therefore, was a model for the state. No one pointed out what it was like to live with a bad rating, and no one pointed out that ratings seem to be lower this year than last. Of course, we won't know for sure until next September or so, but that's the trend among teachers with whom I speak, at least.

And, of course, since everything is wonderful, anyone who opposes APPR is nuts. That includes me and pretty much every single teacher I know. It includes teachers with ratings up and down the spectrum. It certainly includes the likes of Diane Ravitch, Gary Rubinstein, Aaron Pallas, and Leonie Haimson, and pretty much anyone who actually looks at the research and considers it. But we're all insane, according to UFT leadership. They say the system is great.

On the other hand, Cuomo says it's baloney because not enough teachers are losing their jobs. Amazingly, at the absolute lowest point of his popularity, he manages to push a new system through the GOP Senate and the Democratic Assembly. And though Cuomo pretty much got everything he wanted, I got an email from Michael Mulgrew stating that this was yet another victory. Apparently, though there are only two factors in evaluation and testing is one of them, testing does not constitute 50% of evaluation. Diane Ravitch says, since anyone rated ineffective in testing cannot be rated effective overall, that it constitutes 100%. Mulgrew says it's less than 50, on what basis I have no idea whatsoever.

It must be fantastic to be in a position where absolutely everything that happens is an unmitigated victory. I can tell you that I don't know a single teacher outside of the Unity Caucus who feels we've won anything. Maybe, in retrospect, fighting only for the budget and ignoring APPR was not the optimal strategy. Maybe tweeting up a storm, which Mulgrew himself didn't even bother with, did not achieve our goal. Maybe Andrew Cuomo does not, in fact, live in fear of hashtags.

But here's a fact. NYC teachers are now facing our third evaluation system in three years. We've studied the first, and we've studied the second. We've danced this way and that. There are few things more senseless and demoralizing than such an unstable and unpredictable system, particularly one based on junk science. It is most certainly not an improvement in any way over that which it replaced, except for those who salivate at the prospect of firing working teachers, like, for example, the director of reformy Students First NY.

When she thinks this is a victory, and Mulgrew thinks it's a victory, and virtually no working teacher agrees, we're in an odd place indeed. Will the 80 plus percent of working teachers who can't be bothered to fill an X in a UFT election be moved to do so?

Clearly Michael Mulgrew doesn't think so. And there he may genuinely be right. When people have no hope, voting seems a waste of time.

The question is, do we want a teaching force with no hope?

Punchy Mike Explains It All

Watch out teachers, it's me again, "Punchy" Mike Mulgrew, and I'm swingin' wild! You'll take my Common Core out of my cold dead arms, baby! But I'm not here today to punch your face out. I'm here to explain the new legislation, and why we told legislators it was okay if they voted for it.

First of all, there's been a lot of bitching about the expedited 3020a process. Why should there be only one arbitrator instead of three? The fact is it's been that way in New York City for a while, so why shouldn't the rest of the state have that too? You see, this way, while other people may have lost something, we haven't lost anything. So that's a win for us. Well, anyway, it's not a loss for us. Why should we worry about everyone else? Not our job, man.

And fer cryin' out loud, while there may be one or two items that suck in the budget, we got more money, and more money is always a good thing. Sure, you won't get any of it, and your class sizes won't be reduced, but you don't think outside evaluators grow on trees, do you? Someone has to pay for supervisors to drive back and forth to schools and observe classes about which they know nothing whatsoever. It's always good to get a fresh perspective on why you suck how you can better deliver instruction.

And hey, we have a very friendly chancellor. Sure she talks about getting rid of teachers, but I'm sure she doesn't have you in mind when she says stuff like that. She's talking about those other teachers, you know, the ones who are not you, so you don't have to worry.  A lot of people don't understand the importance of union. Union means we stand together and do whatever I tell you to do. That's why we have a loyalty oath, and that's why every single person who represents you in NYSUT and AFT votes any damn way I tell them. That's democracy. Let me tell you, it isn't easy to get an organization this large to not oppose the likes of Andrew Cuomo when he runs for re-election.

We also trust that our friendly chancellor will make fair deals with us on receivership, so that if your school gets taken over and you have to reapply for your job it won't be so bad. We've got a great record with school closings. Just ask any ATR how they like traveling school to school week to week, fighting for bathroom keys. And make no mistake, we support your right to have a bathroom key. 

And don't worry if you get an ineffective rating or two. Sure they can end your career and all, but we've arranged it so that 13% of you can actually get a fair hearing. In fact we've already won one of those hearings, and what's better than that? You only have to worry if you're one of the 87% who faces a kangaroo court and doesn't get a fair hearing, so chin up and all that. Remember, in union we stand together, and we the leadership will decide which 13% of you get a fair hearing. What could be better than that? You trust us, don't you?

Please don't go reading stuff like this that says the mayor did indeed get his 50%. I mean, that's just simple math. I'm just a regular guy, an ex-carpenter. It's all I can do to not spout a stream of obscenities right now for no reason. And don't get all in a lather over Merryl Tisch talking about exempting high performing districts. There's no way New York will be included, and a fundamental facet of unionism is that we care only about ourselves.

In fact, it's a good thing if Tisch is trying to shut up those yammering Long Island parents always going on about opting out. Maybe if their districts aren't affected they will stop screaming. After all, the highest body in the UFT, the delegate assembly, just killed two opt-out resolutions, and failed even to bring up our own watered down and meaningless resolution, the one that reaffirmed our faith in teachers being evaluated with junk science. As a UFT member, you should be happy that there's a possibility these folks will stop making me look bad.

So, in summary, trust us, don't read the blogs, don't listen to Carol Burris or Diane Ravitch or any of those other loudmouths out there, a thousand points of light, and ask yourself this--under my leadership, are you better off than you were a year ago? If the answer is no, ask yourself this--under my leadership, is Mike Mulgrew any better than he was a year ago?

Whatever the answers are, remember, as a unionist, it's your duty to sit down, shut up, and do whatever I say. And if I say things don't suck, that should be good enough for anyone.

Best Gig Around--NY Post Editorial Writer

Sometimes people criticize this blog. They say it only presenta one side. They're entirely right. This space is entirely subjective and pretty much at the whim of whoever writes it, generally yours truly. Why don't I present the POV of Michael Mulgrew? I'd argue that's his job, not mine. I don't see him broadcasting my opinions anywhere. I paint what I see, and if you see otherwise, you can do the same.

Mulgrew's point of view, that the new budget agreement represents some sort of victory, that we've pushed back Cuomo, has little or nothing to do with mine. Amazingly, we've managed to move backwards at the behest of a governor at the low point of once massive popularity.  Cuomo wanted more teachers fired and more schools closed, and it's very hard for me to see how his new budget doesn't achieve that.

At the NY Post, things are different. The Post's POV is based on something, but I have no idea what. Reading it, you'd think Mulgrew was all-powerful, laying down rules for the city to follow. This piece says teachers ought to reject Mulgrew because he's turned on us, supporting the new suspension regulations. I agree with the piece that the new regs may make our jobs more difficult, but I don't see that as reason to reject Mulgrew.

Were Mulgrew the omnipotent force described in the Post editorial, we wouldn't have gone six years without a contract, and we wouldn't have foregone the 8% increase most other city workers got between 2008-2010 for 10 years without interest. Teachers with permanent licenses would not have to reregister to renew them. We wouldn't be looking at mandatory failure of 5% of schools statewide, expedited dismissal procedures, a higher dependence on junk science, or any of the other nonsense our leadership failed to stop, let alone acknowledge in a recent email that now appears nothing short of delusional.

The Post argues that teachers have gotten more money for less time in the classroom, as though teachers are dancing in the streets over spending hours at tedious and wasteful meetings. I'd rather be with the kids, and I don't know a single teacher who feels otherwise. Of course, there's no evidence the Post bothered to consult a single teacher before writing this piece.

The Post continues, offering teachers an alternative to Mulgrew's selfish ways. We can work in charter schools, unencumbered by union. In the Post's universe, charters don't unionize because they don't want to pay dues or abide by those darn union rules. Who wants due process? Isn't it better to let Eva Moskowitz fire you outright because you have a bad haircut? Who wants to stand up for special needs kids who aren't served? Isn't it better to ignore the fact they don't get what they need at risk of losing your job?

The Post, evidently, has never heard of people being afraid to unionize. The Post has never heard of people being afraid for their jobs. In Post-land, Americans are happy to work at Walmart and Target for sub-living wages, with crappy or no benefits. In Post-land, teachers love bringing home cell phones to take parent calls on their own time, and there isn't enormous teacher turnover in charters. In my world, student teachers go all out to get jobs in public schools, and only resort to charters as a last resort.

The Post trots out the old canard about pervert teachers being protected by UFT, as though we are out on the streets cheering child abuse. No one wants that, and the Post doesn't bother with clauses in the UFT Contract that mandate immediate removal of anyone involved in inappropriate contact.

The Post plays into the widespread lie that there is some zombie plague of bad teachers that needs to be eradicated. It says it is nearly impossible to fire teachers, and conveniently ignores the new evaluation system, too young to even have been tested. It ignores the exodus of hundreds of ATR teachers as a result of the new contract, as well as new regulations that place those who remain at risk for no good reason.

Worst, it suggests, with no evidence whatsoever, that Cuomo is the best hope for schools. Personally, I have enormous issues with Mike Mulgrew as President of UFT. But I wouldn't resolve them by affiliating with an astroturf front group like E4E, or volunteering a slave to Eva Moskowitz. Like Governor Cuomo, the Post has not the slightest notion what it is to be a working teacher. This happens when you live in a bubble, taking in what you like and ignoring everything else. Post writers ought to spend more time with real working teachers.

So should Mulgrew. If he thinks there's anything good about the state budget, he needs to head for a classroom and talk to working teachers who aren't on the UFT Unity gravy train.

I am proud to be UFT, and I support my brother and sister teachers.  Our union can do way better, but it's still our union. 80, 000 of us together do better than we would one at a time, with bowls in hand, asking Eva Moskowitz, "Please, ma'am, may I have some more?"

But that's exactly the Post's vision for working teachers. It's not good for us, and it's not good for the kids we serve. Who stands up for the kids? Who will fight for them, ALL of them?

UFT teachers will. That's our job, and it's on our minds every moment. There are reasons to reject our leadership. A big one is its abject failure to work against Cuomo during the election. Another is its ridiculous strategy of opposing him only on the budget, and failing to be aggressive on all the issues that came back to haunt us today. Yet another is its miserable inability to perceive what opt-out is or represents, let alone act on it.

I don't think Mulgrew shares the Post's vision of working people striking for more work and less pay. But for much of last night I wondered what sort of happy pills he must have taken before he wrote that outlandish email painting the state budget as a victory.

Why the Budget Agreement Doesn't Suck

Hi folks, it's me, your old pal "Punchy" Mike Mulgrew! Don't try and take my Common Core from me! I'll punch out your stinking face and push it in the dirt! But seriously, folks, let's talk turkey. First of all, don't believe anything you read on those blogs. I'll be nice, which is hard for me because I'm an ex-carpenter, a regular blue collar guy who can't help but walk around spouting obscenities for no reason. So I'll just say they're purveyors of myth, rather than call them a bunch of despicable liars.

Anyhoo, the new agreement does not suck. Cuomo wanted probation to take five years, and now it only takes four. And all due process rights remain in place, as long as you don't get rated ineffective twice in a row and need more than 90 days to prove your case, as long as you don't get rated ineffective three years in a row and need more than 30 days to prove your case, and as long as you aren't an ATR who needs more than one day. Sure tenure used to take three years, but you gotta admit four years sucks a full year less than five years. Score another victory for us!

Governor Cuomo demanded more charter schools, and whoopee! He didn't get them as part of the budget agreement! How much does that not suck? Instead, he'll negotiate it later! It would suck if they had done it now. Now, we will talk about it later and no one can say just how much it does or does not suck until then. So, in review, doesn't suck now. Another victory! Plus we've always supported charters, and we've even opened and co-located one, and the part of it that didn't suck is still open. Another feather in our cap.

As for placing schools into receivership, the Governor won't do that. Instead, local chancellors will choose receivers. How bad could it be if the city took over closing schools, or had someone take them over? That's much better than Cuomo doing it, and it sucks way less. Of course it's never happened and we have no idea what it will be like when it does, but it is our considered opinion that it will suck less. After all, what's a few thousand ATRs between friends, and who even knows if that will happen? Clearly the amount of suck cannot be quantified here, so, no suck, no foul.

As for merit pay, Cuomo wanted 20K in merit pay. But that won't happen. In NYC, we have master and model teachers, and the rat squad which goes out and determines whether the burden of proof to fire you is on the DOE or you, but that's not merit pay, just like our last failed schoolwide program wasn't merit pay either. And since merit pay sucks, that isn't merit pay, and Cuomo didn't give us merit pay, this also doesn't suck.

As for funding, Cuomo wanted to give 1.1 billion in increases if we sucked up his sucky programs, which would suck. We went out and demanded that Cuomo pay us the 5.6 billion he owed us from the CFE lawsuit, and even paid valuable lip service to the notion of taking him to court over it. But we got 1.6 billion in aid, which sucks a lot less than 1.1 billion and a bunch of sucky programs. Sure the bloggers will ask why we didn't go for the 5.6 billion, but screw them because they're a bunch of lying bastards and we will never, ever allow them to influence us in our mission to accomplish things that don't suck as much as they could otherwise.

As for evaluation, we have of late been suggesting that the 1-100 measure, the one we had Leo Casey defend passionately on Edwize, sucks, and that we're looking for something new. Of course we don't want 50% of your rating to be based on test scores, because that would suck. Instead we will have multiple measures, which we already have, which suck way less than the 50% Governor Cuomo wants. What will they be? Who knows? And sure you might get observed by strangers from the state, but who can judge your skills better than someone who doesn't know you from a hole in the wall? That doesn't suck, does it?

Like Governor Cuomo, we loved the current law when it came out, but when people started to suggest that it sucked, we listened, and dumped NYSUT President Richard Iannuzzi, contending that he sucked for passing the law in the first place. And believe you me, if there are any further problems, we will step up and declare Karen Magee sucks and dump her too. We are not afraid to dispense blame for things that suck. Just bear in mind that nothing is ever our fault, and that every change is a victory in that it could have sucked even more without our valuable input.

So thank you for everything you've done. In retrospect, it sucked that we scheduled the rally for March 28th coinciding with the budget agreement. Perhaps it would have been smarter to do it a week earlier when we might have gotten massive press coverage and actually influenced someone. Believe me, I will blame someone for that, maybe the bloggers, maybe Karen Magee, but someone will pay. And maybe we should have actually endorsed someone against Cuomo when he was running for governor, rather than sitting on our hands and letting Zephyr Teachout lose twice. However, we have already decided to blame NYSUT for not making that decision, so again, it's not our fault and it doesn't suck. And those bastard bloggers won't mention this, but under my leadership we haven't had a catastrophic natural disaster in over two years.

So, in conclusion, things suck much less than they could suck, we've reduced suckiness to a bare minimum, anything that does suck is not our fault, a thousand points of light, and God bless the United Federation of Teachers.

No Magic School Bus for You

Since the advent of Common Core, well before Mike Mulgrew offered to punch us in the face for opposing it, I've been getting complaints about it. They don't just come from the teachers, but from the supervisors and pretty much any parent who catches my ear.

I've heard stories of people surreptitiously sneaking into classrooms to photograph textbooks, and people with very young children who had to read about genocide. Not precisely sure 7 is the optimal age to introduce such concepts, but there you go.

The other day I was in earshot of someone whose kid was bringing Magic School Bus books into school, but the school found them unacceptable. Why? Because they weren't non-fiction. Too bad for the kids who love those books, because loving books is no longer rigorous or gritty enough. If you want them to be full of grit, second graders should be reading The History of Cement, from ancient Babylonian times right up to Roosevelt Island. That's the only way they'll be college ready, and Arne Duncan says we need to look second graders right in the eye and tell them whether or not they're college ready.

Most parents who are not insane don't worry much about whether or not their second graders are college ready. Of course Arne Duncan doesn't represent them, but rather Bill Gates and whatever education programs he's able to produce from his abundant and fertile hind quarters. That's why we're racing to the top, common coring, judging teachers by junk science, and Danielsoning our blues away. And not to put too fine a point on it, but who among us has ever seen Arne speak while Bill Gates drank a glass of water?

We are teaching children to hate reading, doing precisely the opposite of what we should be. We are relying on standardized tests and training our kids to pass them rather than to think. Thinking children choose their own books. Discouraging that at a young age is borderline criminal. What is the message we give children when we tell them what they love is prohibited? What will happen to kids who are told to read things in which they have no interest? 

Is that how we reach the proverbial Top we're Racing to? Or will it produce a bumper crop of disenchanted, disinterested, unimaginative drones ready to populate Walmart as associates? I'm grateful my daughter graduated last year, avoiding quite a bit of this stuff. I'd certainly be opting her out if she were still in high school. 

Just for laughs, here's a list of the groups that have passed the I Refuse resolution, as opposed to the watered down nonsense from UFT that endorses "multiple measures," meaning junk science, to evaluate working teachers.

Amityville Teachers' Association
Associated Teachers of Huntington
Baldwin Teachers Association
Bay Shore Classroom Teachers Association
Bellmore-Merrick United Secondary Teachers
Bellport Teachers Association
Bethpage Congress of Teachers
Brentwood Teachers Association
Brockport Teachers Association
Camden Teachers Association
Carmel Teachers' Association
Center Moriches Teachers' Association
Central Islip Teachers Association
Clarkstown Teachers Association
Commack Teachers Association
Connetquot Teachers Association
Deer Park Teachers' Association
Farmingdale Federation of Teachers
Freeport Teachers Association
Fulton Teachers Association
Garden City Teachers' Association
Glen Cove Teachers' Association
Half Hollow Hills Teachers' Association
Hamburg Teachers Association
Hastings Teachers Association
Hewlett-Woodmere Faculty Association
Ichabod Crane Teachers Association
Islip Teachers Association
Kingston Teachers Federation
Lancaster Central Teachers Association
Lake Shore Central Teachers' Association
Lakeland Federation of Teachers
Lawrence Teachers' Association
Levittown Teachers Union
Lindenhurst Teachers Association
Little Flower Teachers Association
Locust Valley School Employees Association
Lynbrook Teachers Association
Merrick Faculty Association
Middle Country Teachers Association
Miller Place Teachers Association
MORE Caucus (NYC)
New Hartford Teachers Association
New Paltz United Teachers
New Rochelle Federation of United School Employees
New York Mills Teachers' Association
North Babylon Teachers' Organization
North Bellmore Teachers Association
North Rockland Teachers Association
North Shore Schools Federated Employees
North Syracuse Education Association
Oneonta Teachers' Association
Orchard Park Teachers Association
Patchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers
Plainedge Federation of Teachers
Plainview-Old Beth Page Congress of Teachers
Port Jefferson Teachers Association
Port Jefferson Station Teachers Association
Ramapo Teachers Association
Rocky Point Teachers Association
Rockville Centre Teachers' Association
Rome Teachers Association
Sherburne-Earlville Teachers' Association
Smithtown Teachers Association
Spencerport Teachers Association
Springville Faculty Association
Shoreham Wading River Teachers Association

I'm grateful for all the union leaders who stand up for public school teachers, parents and children. One day I, too, hope to have one.

Waiting for My U.F.T. to Catch Up

It's hard to be an optimist when the UFT seems an immovable object.  Indeed, leadership practices a self-professed, peculiar form of parliamentarian rule that seems to negate democracy.  It justifies 800 people voting as leadership dictates instead of heeding the rank and file, the ones whose dues pay their salaries.

Still, I think the U.F.T. is a moving object, albeit very slowly.  To some, it may change with all the speed of natural erosion, painfully slow.  Given its traditional focus on business unionism, it sometimes seems to take the side of business-oriented principles over that of its constituency.  I could mention UFT charters and ties with highly suspect persons or foundations as a starter.

I regularly follow the news at ctunet.com, the website of the Chicago Teachers Union, as well uft.org, the website of the United Federation of Teachers.  It seems my UFT is in a race.  They just always seem behind.  At times, the UFT seems to stop or stall.  At other times, it picks up the pace.  Sometimes, it changes course.  Yet, it is always behind.  And, I watch and wait and wonder when it will finally catch up on one issue, perhaps, while falling further behind on others.  

Both unions are busy staving off attacks from politicians funded by corporate-minded businessmen, showering millions into campaign donations as they promote the destruction of public education.  In Chicago, the arch enemy is Mayor Rahm Emanuel, now fighting to maintain his power in the face of a powerful challenge by Jesus "Chuy" Garcia.  The CTU is stoutly behind Garcia.  In NY, Governor Andrew Cuomo is now the arch enemy.  Backed by the 1%ers, he has made it his personal crusade to destroy the "public-school monopoly."  It seems that by failing to do enough to try to stop him, we enabled him and with a vengeance.

Both the CTU and UFT sites favor fairer funding for our public schools.  The UFT has a great link to a site which will inform you just how much money your school has lost through the Governor's reluctance to abide by the Campaign for Fiscal Equity's school-funding lawsuit.  There's not much here that is not also a concern of the CTU.

Both sites share concerns over class sizes.  Here is a link to the CTU's discussion of the issue.  Here is a link to the UFT's tax proposal to help reduce class size.

At faculty conferences, we hear dire projections of more students due to crowd our already overcrowded floors next year.  When I consider that an arbitrator's solution to the problem this year was excusing teachers of over-sized classes (34+ at the high-school level) from a period of  professional duty, I am severely dismayed.  The remedy shows a tragic misunderstanding of the nature of the problem and it bodes badly for the future.  It seemed the UFT could fight a hell of a lot harder to relieve students and teachers of overcrowded learning environments.



Despite the similar predicaments which indeed affect public schools across the nation, there are key differences between the CTU and the UFT.  Since CORE gained control of the CTU, the union became far more active in issues of social justice and political action.  In addition, the CTU is far more active in attacking the crippling testing regime.  On March 6th, the CTU had two pieces on the opt-out movement.  Here is a sign from their site:




The UFT now has its own version of a testing resolution.  Whereas Sterling Roberson seemed to originally state teachers need testing as "tools to help drive instruction," the resolution states assessments must be a "servant to curriculum."  Mulgrew indicated at the D.A. his belief that parents desire regular testing.  (These are not the same parents who move in my circles.)

So, the UFT supports annual exams administered for diagnostic purposes only.  The resolution applauds standards--which, in my mind, implies support for the Common Core.  (The U.S. Chamber of Commerce must be loving them.)  The resolution further applauds multiple measures of evaluation.  It affirms parents' rights to opt out their children from exams.  It affirms that the power of Pearson must be curbed.

The CTU always seems several steps in advance of the UFT.  The Common Core will ultimately be doomed, perhaps, even as the UFT clings to it.  The national standards are intensely unpopular with those who are not paid endorsers.  The question of it constitutionality may be one of its lesser worries.

Last year, while the UFT (at the AFT) worried about bathwater--which the baby wasn't even able to get in, the CTU passed a resolution clearly in opposition to the Core:

"that enjoins the city’s educators to growing national opposition to the Common Core State Standards, saying the assessments disrupt student learning and consume tremendous amounts of time and resources for test preparation and administration"

Both the CTU and the UFT recognize we are at war with those who would destroy public education.  The UFT in the past month has taken great strides in mobilizing its membership through twitter campaigns, public forums and petitions.  They have organized a week of action, culminating in teachers joining with the community in human chains about their buildings.

Chicago, given the leadership of Karen Lewis, has taken far more serious actions in mobilizing its membership.  The difference probably goes in part to the  different situations faced by the two cities and the fact that UFT-Unity practices business unionism.  CTU, under the leadership of CORE, is far more versatile.  Instead of telling us that our communities want more Common-Core tests, they join with the community to overturn the system.

I am guessing some day my UFT will catch up on the issue of the Core, but by then there will be new issues, and we may, once again, lag behind.  It is only when your views truly reflect the views of the People that you can truly catch up.  Then you have the right pulse.  Then, you stand side by side, arm in arm with "People Power."