Mayor de Blasio and the Trailers

 To the left you can see my workplace of many years. Home sweet home for me and hundreds of ELLs over the last few years, until my supervisor kicked me out to protect a much-coveted second-floor classroom. I'm pretty happy there in that I have an LCD screen and can use technology for the first time in my 30-year career. It's so much easier to teach ESL when you can project huge visuals at will.

I was pretty surprised to learn that, unlike his predecessor, Mayor de Blasio actually plans to get rid of the trailers in NYC. Having spent over a decade in those moldy monstrosities, I'm the first to applaud that action. In fact, I'm up for bringing a bunch of lawn chairs, setting up a barbecue, and having a huge party in celebration. But unfortunately, it's not quite that simple. What surprised me most was the note in the Mayor's Capital Plan to take down our trailers.

This was a particular surprise since no one had alerted me, or as far as I could tell, anyone else in our building. In fact, Class Size Matters estimates that fewer than 20% of the seats needed in Queens high schools are going to be created. How, then, can you eliminate existing seats? I'm not a math expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I'd love to know how this is done. Or even why this is done.


In our school, we use all eight of our trailers every period of the day. While the DOE is unable to calculate how many kids use our trailers, I don't find it that difficult. 8 times thirty is 240. Multiply that by ten, for our ten-period day, and you have 2400 kids using our trailers each and every day. If you take away our trailers, we will lose all that space. How will we make up for it?

When I became chapter leader six years ago, we were severely overcrowded. I wrote about it in the Daily News and worked very hard to get it covered in the Post and the Times, among other venues. Colleagues reported that Klein and Bloomberg had to acknowledge us on TV. Then UFT VP Leo Casey helped our School Leadership Team get a meeting with Tweed in which we agreed to limit enrollment, and we managed to slow things down a little.

Unfortunately, when and if Mayor de Blasio closes our trailers, he's made no provision to place our kids anywhere else. I know our principal dreams of adding another floor of classrooms, and perhaps a culinary program. It's a great idea, but it will cost a whole lot of money. I don't see anyone offering it, and unfortunately all the hedge fund zillionaires are placing their lot with Eva Moskowitz. If Cuomo and his rich pals get their quasi-voucher program there will be even less money for lowly public schoolchildren.

I told multiple callers from UFT leadership that I refused to work for Bill Thompson. Instead, I worked for Bill de Blasio, I contributed to Bill de Blasio, and I went to his inauguration. It was a beautiful day, though we were all pretty much freezing our butts off.  I very much support Mayor de Blasio's initiative to get NYC kids out of trailers.

But, Mr. Mayor, if you take kids out of trailers you need to provide some other space for them. I don't want kids coming to Francis Lewis High School or any other school at 6 AM, staying until 6 PM, and eating lunch at 9 AM. Please find a reasonable alternative for us, and for other city schools, before you knock down those diabolical little boxes.

Act of God No Excuse, Declares Mayor Michael Bloomberg

If your house had ten feet of water rip through it, or if your living room is full of mud, or sand, or locusts, that's no reason for missing work. Michael Bloomberg is the mayor of New York, he has billions of dollars, and if he says so it must be true.

After all, his brownstone is still there, and it was not damaged. Why the hell was your residence damaged? If you had half a brain, you would've bought an east side brownstone rather than a ranch house in a flood area. Then you would've been able to go to work while the storm raged. So what if you were taken up by the wind, and flew around with Dorothy and Toto and a cow? Judy Garland wasn't even five foot tall and she did it. So what's your excuse, pal?

And please, don't give me that line about helping your grandfather dig out of his ruined home. Have you seen Bloomberg helping anyone clean up, or bringing food to people without power? Have you seen him donating food to shelters? Of course not. In fact, he banned donations to food shelters, because who knows whether or not the evil donors will give soft drinks that are too large? After all, who wants those careless refugees drinking too much Pepsi Cola?

Now of course Mayor Bloomberg has made allowances in case the building in which you work happened to have been closed. Were that the case, you simply had to have taken a photograph of yourself in front of the closed building on the day in question. What could be simpler? And just to make things perfectly clear, Mayor Bloomberg made that ruling a week after the fact. So all you need do is travel back through time, take the photo, perhaps with that day's newspaper, and provide absolute proof you didn't do so after the fact. A cinch.

Mayor Bloomberg is not restricted by nature. When we were hit with a crippling snowstorm last year, he just got in his private jet and headed to Bermuda. If you'd had the foresight to do that, you wouldn't have been here bellyaching about how to get your car out of the driveway. And please don't go on about convention and laws. When Mayor Bloomberg saw term limits, twice affirmed by voters, he simply got his pals to pass a new law, spent a hundred million bucks, and bought himself Gracie Mansion, fair and square, for the third time.

So please, New York, enough with the complaints. Man up, and face the situation. Just do what Mayor Bloomberg would do.

I Know We Said We Fixed It Last Time, and the Time Before That. But This Time We Really Mean It. Trust Us. Okay?

Leo Casey, resident propagandist at Edwize has yet another post about what a great job he and Ms. Weingarten are doing for the ATRs. It's odd he needed to do that, since he wrote last April that the "hold harmless" clause would mean principals could hire senior teachers at no additional cost. Doubtless it didn't occur to Mr. Casey at that time that principals could hire two newbies instead, and might prefer to do so.

In fact, it's odd that Mr. Casey needed a "hold harmless" clause at all, since he and Ms. Weingarten enthusiastically endorsed the 05 contract which was directly responsible for the ATR mess. Here's Edwize writer City Sue on the beauty and wonder of the clause that caused the entire mess:

In fact, there’ll be more transfer opportunities. The only thing is, like in the real world, you’ll have to sell yourself. See a vacancy? Just apply! All vacancies will be declared, not just half. No limits on how many jobs you can apply for. No release needed from your principal. No limits on how many teachers can transfer out of a single school. No discrimination in hiring allowed, not even for union activities — or age, race, etc. No involuntary transfers. It’s a free market, for those who dare! And for excessed teachers, there’s always a job for you back home (in your school or district) if you can’t find anything else.

Unfortunately, it didn't turn out that way for the hundreds of teachers consigned to perpetual substitute teaching. I corresponded for some time with a young woman so demoralized by her time in the absent teacher reserve that she quit. I'm afraid Mr. Casey's agreement is a little too late for her.

So will the agreement help? Perhaps. Unfortunately, everything I've seen suggests that in the chess game between Klein and the UFT aristocracy, Mr. Klein has a long term vision that Ms. Weingarten and her patronage mill sorely lack. Ms. Weingarten's flunkies were wrong when they said the "open market" system would help. They've posted several articles on how successful it is, noting the number of transfers and pointedly ignoring those teachers stuck in the ATR brigade. They said the "hold harmless" clause would help, and it didn't.

Perhaps principals will now hire ATRs, and if they do, it will be a good thing. But what about those who will inevitably be left behind? Will they provide more fodder for The New Teacher Project, Joel Klein's bought and paid for propaganda project?

Sadly, it's hard to trust Mr. Klein, and worse, it's just as hard to trust the paid mouthpieces of Ms. Weingarten. Que sera sera. But along with the rest of my colleagues who actually do this job, I'll be watching.

Green Dots in Locke (and NYC)

Green Dot Charter Schools have taken over Locke High School in LA, and columnist Steve Lopez of the LA Times sees improvements already. Apparently they've dumped two-thirds of the teaching staff, instituted dress codes for students, and tightened up security considerably.

I work in what's considered an excellent regular high school, but it would be much better if administration were to accept no nonsense from kids. I don't accept it in my classes, but I really can't get involved in the halls as I'm dead certain I will receive little or no backup.

Public schools here are not permitted to mandate dress codes, as Green Dot apparently is. And while Chancellor Klein talks a big game about reporting illegal and dangerous behavior, there's little incentive for principals to cooperate as it may impact negatively on their ability to earn 30 grand in merit pay.

Lopez offers no evidence tenure and seniority for teachers would preclude what's described in the column, or that union contracts stood in the way of any of the changes mentioned. Certainly Chancellor Klein would love to have the option of firing two-thirds of working teachers and replacing them with shiny new Teaching Fellows, TFAs, and newbies at half the salary. After all, there are still stadiums to be built.

Here in NYC, he's got a willing collaborator in UFT President Randi Weingarten, who's partnered with Green Dot to open a charter in NYC. Ms. Weingarten and her Edwize minions insist that what they have at Green Dot is better than tenure. It's difficult for me to imagine that the newly-fired Locke teachers share her sentiments right now. In fact, Green Dot ejects not only tenure, but seniority rights as well. Here's what its website proclaims:

Key reforms embodied in the AMU contract include: teachers have explicit say in school policy and curriculum; no tenure or seniority preference...

Perhaps you're willing to trust the good graces of Green Dot. Perhaps you believe they won't dump you out on the street, as they just did to two-thirds of the teachers at Locke. Probably the teachers at Locke thought that too, or they wouldn't have invited Green Dot in the first place. After all, Green Dot's Steve Barr bought them pizza, so he must be a good guy. Right?

More remarkable than any of this is the fact that the United Federation of Teachers, whose job, ostensibly, is to stand up and negotiate for us, would invite this company into the city.

On May 17th, 2007, the LA Times ran an editorial which stated Locke teachers:

...are perfectly willing to loosen work rules and toss tenure out the classroom window...

I wrote about this story here on that very day, saying:

Green Dot charter schools are interesting to me. I was thrilled when Eduwonk featured its founder, Steve Barr, as a guest blogger. I thought unionized charters were a hopeful sign for innovative education. But it turns out there's no tenure in Mr. Barr's variety of union, and the LA Times urges teachers to toss it out the classroom window.

This provoked a typically vicious response from Leo Casey, Ms. Weingarten's internet mouthpiece:

From the “make up whatever facts fit today’s rant” school of thought, there is the assertion that Barr has thrown tenure out the window.

Mr. Casey, via his link, attributes the assertion to me. However, it was the LA Times who made the remark. Thus, Leo Casey, unelected UFT High School Vice-President, shows that he'd rather libel a working teacher than abide criticism of a charter school boss who explicitly rejects both tenure and seniority.


Working people have it very tough in the USA nowadays. It's simply unconscionable that union officials should be working at making things worse. And despite what the Unity/New-Action machine may tell you, Rod "The NEA is a terrorist organization" Paige admires UFT President Randi Weingarten but not because she's improved the lot of working people.

Leo Casey asks:

...why let the facts get in the way of a good rant?

Why indeed, Mr. Casey? Now that we have more facts about Green Dot, I have total confidence you'll ignore them utterly. You've got your gig, and your two pensions, and really, who gives a damn if generations of Americans will suffer for your willful and unconscionable refusal to confront reality?

PS: At Locke, Green Dot gets just just one more little advantage:

With the help of private donations, class sizes will be kept at about 28 instead of 40.

There's nothing like a level playing field, and Green Dot's sweetheart deal is nothing like a level playing field at all. Wouldn't it be nice if we had lower class sizes too? It's odd we don't. The UFT declared "Mission Accomplished" on class sizes back on April 12th, 2007.

Slow Learners

Some people learn more slowly than others, and as such need special attention. Sometimes we give kids time-and-a-half on tests so they can keep up with their peers. Sometimes kids thrive when given the attention they need.

Unfortunately, some people never learn at all, and keep making the same mistakes over and over. When the UFT paper loudly declared "Class Size Victory," the details made it very clear that Mayor Bloomberg had the option to reduce class size by a fraction of a kid, or not at all, and that there would be no consequences whatsoever for any failure to do so. When class sizes were "reduced" by a fraction of a student, UFT leadership was shocked and outraged.

When Mayor Bloomberg followed his merit pay deal with a million-dollar panel, ostensibly to identify and eliminate bad teachers, the UFT leadership was shocked and outraged. How could he do such a thing? Isn't Mayor Bloomberg the same guy who, after forging a contract agreement, unilaterally denied sabbatical leave to all teachers for just as long as he could get away with it? As I recall, the UFT had to go to court to enforce the contract they had just negotiated. They were shocked and outraged, of course.

So when Mayor Bloomberg's double-secret plan to evaluate teachers based on student scores came out, how did the UFT react? They were shocked and outraged, again. Only it turns out, they knew about it in advance. Edwize writer City Sue sits on the panel that administers the plan. Like all UFT employees, she admits no fault, ever:

President Weingarten had angrily refused to endorse the project last summer and had won a concession that results would not be used to evaluate any UFT member.

Naturally. And when President Weingarten found out otherwise, I've no doubt she was shocked and outraged.

City Sue figured there was little cause for concern:

Still, to skip to the bottom line before I fill in the details, remember we have a signed contract until October 2009. By then Klein and Company will be packing their bags.

I'm not altogether convinced that a new administration will be the end of the shock and outrage. Only someone willfully ignoring history could come to such a conclusion. We can’t count on a friend in City Hall. I’ve been teaching for 23 years, and we’ve almost never had one. While I remember a brief flash of sympathy from Mayor Dinkins, he quickly turned his back on us, rather than defending education as important.

It’s high time for the UFT to become more proactive, more assertive, and less dependent on who may or may not be the next mayor, governor, president, or whatever. Governor Spitzer, for example (and I voted for him as enthusiastically as anyone), has just drastically reduced funds that could’ve been used to reduce class sizes in NYC.

It's time for the UFT to push a pro-teacher, pro-education agenda, to take charge for a change. We can't just stand around waiting to see what Mayor Bloomberg (or whoever) does next. Among other things, kids are packed into Mayor Bloomberg's crumbling testing factories like so many sardines. They can't wait any longer and neither can we.

Next time the Unity/New Action patronage employees visit you're school, cut them off when they tell you how shocked and outraged they are. Ask them what on earth they're doing to justify those double salaries and pensions. They'll probably respond with shock and outrage.

Today, we need more.

On Reading

If you look at the latest issue of New York Teacher, you'll encounter a bold front-page headline:

CLASS SIZE VICTORY!

Wow! Break out the champagne. Sounds great, doesn't it?

Let's see what the story says:

The headline proclaims:

Funds will provide meaningful reform

What is unmistakable amid the reams of detail is the victory for the UFT and parents working to shrink class sizes over the Department of Education’s strenuous objections. This budget requires New York City to reduce class sizes in all grades over the next five years to grade-by-grade averages set by the state education commissioner. UFT President Randi Weingarten called the provision a guarantee of “meaningful class size reform.”

Wow. A guarantee. And a meaningful one, too. I'm very impressed. But wait a minute. What's this? In the second column, I spy:

The legislation does build in some flexibility for Michael Bloomberg and future mayors by not specifying minimum target numbers the city must achieve or amount the city must spend on class-size reduction. The legislation also creates an enforcement mechanism, while at the same time protecting the city from lawsuits over class size by putting enforcement in the hands of the state education commissioner.

What's that? Could you speak a little louder, please? There's no minimum target number? There's no minimum amount on spending? The city is protected from lawsuits? Why would there even be lawsuits, since there are no minimum targets for anything whatsoever?

Let's look at the bottom of the page, and see what the law says:

Such plan shall include class size reduction for low performing and overcrowded schools and also include the methods to be used to achieve such class sizes, such as the creation or construction of more classrooms and school buildings, the placement of more than one teacher in a classroom or methods to otherwise reduce the student to teacher ration;

So let's see. If hizzoner cannot locate additional toxic waste sites on which to construct schools, if he continues closing school buildings, or using school-owned buildings for condos, if he continues to offer the best facilities in the city to charters run by billionaires, there are really some easy ways for him to meet this "meaningful" mandate.

For example, he could reduce class size from 34 to 33 (there are no minimum targets, after all), and place 66 kids in one classroom with two teachers. Consider, though, that this is the same mayor who insisted on 37.5 minute classes. He could reduce class size by .5, and place 67 kids in one classroom with two teachers. Or, he could reduce class size by .33, and place 101 kids in one classroom with three teachers.

Pretty soon some creative "reformer" will determine the extra adults should be paraprofessionals rather than teachers, so as to conserve valuable tax dollars needed to construct sports stadiums.

It's a win-win. Ms. Weingarten can loudly declare victory, and Mayor Mike can pretty much do whatever the hell he wishes, with no viable consequences whatsoever.