We Are the Bearers of Hope

It's a reformy world. All sorts of money seeks and follows demagogues like Michelle Rhee and Eva Moskowitz. They get in the media and spew their blather unchallenged about whatever they like. Always, the bottom line is unionized teachers as scapegoats. The only solution is more and more selective test prep factories. If they can pick the best kids and get rid of the undesirables, they can post better test scores, which in their world is the sole factor that determines whether or not a school merits existence.

But we won't shut up. Big voices like Diane Ravitch, Leonie Haimson and Carol Burris are out there, loudly proclaiming the truth. When Eva Moskowitz attempts to spout her nonsense in a fair forum, multiple voices of reason stop her dead in her tracks. There are more of us than there are of them, we love our children, and we will not give up no matter how much money they fight us with.

In our own schools we are dispirited by the junk science evaluation system, terrorized by the whims of imperious supervisors. Mulgrew, displaying no connection to what we feel, boasts of how few teachers are rated ineffective. Talk to one of those teachers, facing job loss, and you'll instantly see how little consolation it is. At the same time, Mulgrew boasts to the DA that John King finds our system among the best in the state because so many of us are rated developing and are on improvement plans. You see how that works? It's good because so few teachers have adverse ratings, but it's also good because so many teachers have adverse ratings. It must be a greatly comforting to reside in the Unity Caucus echo chamber.

Everywhere I go I see teachers afraid of their own shadows. They're terrified they'll get poor ratings for no reason. They're afraid their small-minded vindictive supervisors will target them. They won't sign grievances because they fear that will make them targets. Consequently the Contract means nothing. You want me to put up a bulletin board and include a rubric that parents will neither comprehend nor care about? Fine. You have no time for me to do it? That's fine too.

Mike Mulgrew still thinks the evaluation plan is the best thing since sliced bread, and it's likely as not because he's never tried artisan bread that you cut with your own knife. After all, he took part in the creation of the law. He's proud to have made junk science a factor in teacher evaluations. Though he, like just about everyone, doesn't understand the MOSL, he has people who do, and while none of us actually understand it, the formula somehow worked, spitting out only a tenth of NYC teachers as sub-par.

Of course the consequences for those teachers can be draconian. If your supervisor gave you decent ratings and you're on a humiliating "improvement plan" simply because of junk science, that can be incredibly demoralizing. Of course if you were rated ineffective, and face 3020a dismissal charges with the burden of proof on you rather than DOE, you're facing the loss of your very livelihood. And yes, junk science can be the deciding factor placing you there. Then you're at the tender mercies of some UFT member who saw fit to join the rat squad.

Mulgrew, unlike working teachers, has nothing to be afraid of except an election that's heavily rigged in his favor. He well knows that most teachers find it so ridiculous they throw their ballots in the trash.

That's where we are. But there's no advantage in being afraid, I'm afraid. If indeed your supervisor is a bully, tolerating abuse won't make him any less of one. I've seen people who have opted to keep quiet so as to avoid retaliation end up the subjects of retaliation anyway.  There's no upside to fear, be it justified or simply garden-variety paranoia.

Those of us who see the truth must speak it. Those of us who see what's right must preach it. We must prop up our brothers and sisters who are fearful and oppressed. We must point to others who say the truth. These are tough times and there are those who'd leave us for dead.

But we're far from it. And for our own sakes and for those of our children, we can't give up. The fight's not easy, and the fight's not fair. But we have the numbers and we will prevail. There is simply no other option.

MOSL and the Ten Commandments

Every school needs to determine precisely how junk science is utilized to determine teacher ratings. In our school, we tried to make measures as broad as possible. Wherever we could, we did not tie teachers to ratings based on their individual students. We felt this was unhealthy. For example, if some kid came to me asking for extra help, it would probably be less than optimal for me to say, “Screw you, kid, because you’re in Miss Grundy’s class.”

I probably wouldn’t say that in any case, but I would never want to be in competition with my colleagues. This places me in opposition to the prevailing reformy winds, which cry, “Fire the lowest 5, 10, or 90% of all teachers.” That’s also nonsense. But the entire notion of MOSL is nonsense, and if you’re involved you have no alternative but to choose the nonsense that suits you best.

The trend in my school was highly effective ratings in the building. This left a lot of happy teachers. But alas, most of us, myself included, were dragged down to merely effective after our junk science scores were averaged in. On the flip side, a lot of developing ratings were pulled up to effective.  As chapter leader, pissed off though I was about my rating and those of most of my colleagues, I felt we had more or less done the best we could.

My school, though, tends to do well. I’ve spoken to other people who’ve seen highly effective ratings dragged down to developing, and there are a few cases I’ve heard of that went from highly effective to ineffective. Hopefully cases like those will be corrected on appeal. Most appeals will go to the chancellor, where precedent from Klein on has been a rejection level of almost 100%. Our new agreement allows UFT to present 13% of cases to independent arbitrators, who will hopefully be more reasonable.

The consequences of poor ratings can be dire. Developing is not all that bad, though not all that good either. The primary consequence, aside from damage to your pride and such, is a TIP, or teacher improvement plan. Theoretically, the teacher and admin will collaboratively work out a plan to improve whatever needs improvement. Should that be the junk science portion of the rating, it will be an uphill battle indeed. Reliable studies suggest that teachers effect test scores somewhere between 1 and 14%. And of course if your supervisors are insane, the TIP could be torturous.

You may not appeal a developing rating. However, you will not face 3020a dismissal charges based on such ratings either. Ineffective ratings are quite a bit more threatening. Should you get one, you will be visited by a dementor validator who will decide whether or not you suck. Should the validator decide that in fact you do not suck, your principal can still bring you up on 3020a dismissal charges the next year. However, the DOE will have to prove you suck.

If the validator gives you a thumbs-down, saying yes you do suck, you will then have to prove that you do not suck. This basically robs you of that whole innocent-until-proven-guilty thing, which can be more than a minor inconvenience, what with poverty, health care, homelessness, and minimum wage employment all out there to welcome you.

So the decision of your MOSL committee can be a very serious thing. Do you know what your school’s MOSL committee decided? Did it work last year? Was it changed this year? What has worked for you and your colleagues? What hasn’t? And why on earth are we asked to make such high-stakes nonsensical decisions in the first place?

It's Rating Time!

For several years now I've been writing about the junk science ratings to which we've been subject. I've gotten in shouting matches with people who thought it was a great thing that the principal's judgment would no longer dictate how we'd be rated. They gave examples of how the junk science could contradict the principal's opinion. I'm with another chapter leader who got a rating almost identical to mine.

And golly gee, the junk science didn't help us at all. In fact, both of our administrations declared us highly effective, but the junk science said we were merely effective, and that brought both of our ratings down. Imagine that. My colleague just said, "It's the only test I can get an A on and then not get an A."

Of course, this could work differently for other teachers. If admin had deemed me developing or ineffective, it would have brought up my score.

Here's another thing to consider. All of our schools choose different MOSL models, and even within schools different departments utilize different models. If any of this were remotely scientific, how could we apply completely different standards to not only teachers of different departments, but also teachers of different schools? Had we chosen different methods, would we have different ratings? If so, on which astral plane does that have any validity?

My top secret rating is below. How did you do? How do you feel about it?

I think it's utter nonsense.

OVERALL AND SUBCOMPONENT RATINGS:

The overall APPR rating is based on the sum of three subcomponent scores: Measures of Teacher Practice (60%), State Measures (20%), and Local Measures (20%). Ratings are determined using the scoring chart below.

Measures of Teacher Practice State Measures Local Measures 0-60 points: 56 0-20 points: 17 0-20 points: 17 Highly Effective HEDI Rating Effective HEDI Rating Effective HEDI Rating

Overall Rating 0-100 Points: 90 Effective HEDI Rating Safety Net Result: N/A

How Much Does This Contract Cost?

There were no givebacks in the 2008-2010 round of contract bargaining for FDNY, NYPD, or DSNY. They got 4% one year, and 4% the next. That was pretty much it.

UFT, on the other hand, went to Albany to help write a draconian junk science law that makes every teacher in the state subject to VAM, which AFT President Randi Weingarten now refers to as a sham. Would that we had known that before agreeing to it. In any case, we were told, the system would have to be negotiated, and we would get a say, and that's why the system was so incredibly wonderful.

Of course we got the evaluation system without the contract, nothing was negotiated, and fanatical ideologue John King unilaterally decided on our system. Though neither the DOE nor the UFT wanted 4-6 annual evaluations, King did, so that was it. Now supervisors had to spend as much time observing teachers doing a great job as those who needed help, so less help was available for teachers in need. Yet another stroke of brilliance from the man who deems Common Core a panacea for our children (but not his own).

A UFT rep came to my school and told my members that the UFT was very smart, and that we would get our contract. After all, he said, there could be no evaluation system without a modification to contract. Alas, we did, in fact, get the evaluation system without the contract. Members routinely ask me to invite this rep back so they can scream at him. I've thus far declined.

Did FDNY, NYPD, or DSNY get a new junk-science based evaluation system for their relatively great increases? I think not. Yet our leadership not only enabled it, but placed it in the hands of a three-year charter school teacher who sees fit to fail 70% of our children. I suppose you could say that wasn't a contract giveback, since our leadership saw fit to enable it for nothing. The day after it was passed, Mayor Mike Bloomberg boasted he'd gotten the most draconian observation system in the state, and didn't have to give one dime to do so.

Mayor Bloomberg also threatened to lay off teachers. UFT responded by canceling sabbaticals for a year and sending our ATR teachers as week-to-week wanderers, homeless travelers with very little chance of settling anywhere. I was at the DA where we voted on this and several highly-placed UFT-Unity told me this would never happen. "The DOE is too inept," they said.

So perhaps that wasn't a giveback either. But they were wrong about the evaluation plan being tied to a contract. They were wrong about the DOE being unable to rotate ATR teachers. They were wrong about being able to negotiate the junk-science plan.

Perhaps they're right about there being no givebacks, if you don't consider lending tens of thousands of dollars to the city a giveback, if you don't consider waiting four more years to get the raise other unions got four years ago a giveback, if you don't consider not giving teachers who resigned retro pay a giveback, and if you don't consider one day 3020a hearings for ATR teachers a giveback, and if you don't consider setting a new pattern that fails even to keep pace with inflation a giveback.

But guess what?

We are not, by any stretch of the imagination, achieving parity, or even the pattern that NYPD, FDNY, or DSNY got. Maybe that's not a giveback either.

And maybe this is the best our leadership can do. I acknowledge that.

I can only conclude that what we need is leadership that can do what NYPD, FDNY, or DSNY leadership can do. We need leadership that can get the pattern that other unions receive, which should be a no-brainer. We need leadership that can establish a pattern that at least meets the rate of inflation.

I further conclude that UFT members deserve at least the same consideration our brother and sister unionists received, and what we're being offered is far from it.

John King's NYC APPR System and the Illusion of Choice

We had a department meeting on Thursday. We discussed the MOSL, the measures of student learning by which we will be judged. We're ESL teachers, and as you may know, that means our kids are English language learners. So we have to determine some way that we will be judged by their test scores, because Bill Gates thinks that's the only thing that matters, and therefore Arne Duncan and Barack Obama think so too.

We have a MOSL committee in our school, and in August we determined that we would spread the joy. That is, if your department were to be judged by test scores, you would be judged on department scores rather than individual ones. We did not want teachers to be in competition with one another, and we did not want anyone to feel that helping a kid not in your class would somehow have the potential to do you harm.

So, because somehow the decision had not been made in August, or perhaps because John King had a new and even stupider idea than those he'd had previously, we were asked to make a department decision. One person said that since we were all good teachers, we ought to be judged individually. I said that there was no validity to judging any teacher, good, bad, or otherwise by test scores, and that a recent study suggested that variability in test scores was influenced only 1 to 14% by individual teachers.

Given that, I suggested we sink or swim together, and my department agreed. In fact, our MOSL committee had already made that decision. However, there remains the fact that we are gambling on one another, and that while some of my colleagues may do better as a result, others will certainly do worse. Can there be any validity to a teacher evaluation system that actually asks you to throw the dice and hope for the best?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I get a bad rating as a result of this. Does that, by any stretch of the imagination, make me a worse teacher? Let's say, again for argument, that I get a good rating because of our decision. Does that make me a better teacher?

Obviously, I am the same teacher whatever the rating is. I am no better and no worse, whatever John King's rating labels me. Firstly, there is no scientific basis to assume any validity to value-added ratings. Second, you need no knowledge of science to determine that shooting the dice and hoping for the best is absurd.

The other thing our department discussed is which test we ought to be judged on. Apparently, we had a choice of that as well. We took the recommendation of our AP, who said that the NYCESLAT results would likely show improvement. However, I teach beginners, and many of my students had never taken this test, having wandered in in September, or during other times of year when the test was not given. She told me then that the NYCESLAT results would be compared with the city's LAB-R test, which was now more closely aligned with the NYCESLAT. I pointed out that last year it was certainly not aligned with it at all. There was not much she could say to that.

So teacher careers are being put on the line and we are given various options as to how we'd like it done. It's ridiculous, but there it is. And despite promises that it would be negotiated by union, it was not, and not one rank and file member got a voice in how this was done.

Personally, I think I could observe a class and make better judgments than any test score, and I'd argue that teacher-designed tests are vastly superior to standardized ones. It was an awful decision on the part of UFT leadership to support this system, and an even worse one to leave it in the hands of fanatical ideologue John King.

The choice is one of which weapon you'd like aimed at your head, in the hope that you will select the one more likely to miss.

For Most Improved Union Leader--Richard Iannuzzi

I've been reading and hearing a lot about the "Iannuzzi APPR." To me, that's remarkable. Here in NYC, Michael Mulgrew couldn't wait to claim it. It was the best thing since NYC got rid of the last coal-burning furnace a few days earlier. I didn't believe it at all. Diane Ravitch has consistently said VAM is junk science, and to me, the optimal measure of junk science in my evaluation ought to be zero.

Though both Iannuzzi and Mulgrew said this was a great thing because there was so much to be negotiated, I wondered about that. After all, having watched years pass without a contract, not to mention the one in 2005 that crippled seniority rights, I had a lot of reason for skepticism. For the last few weeks I've been traveling all over the state, and I've met union leaders who've managed to negotiate decent deals under this law.

There are exceptions, of course, and we're likely the largest.

Our leadership, for reasons that elude me utterly, thought John King, the reformiest man in the state, was a suitable arbiter between us and the fanatical ideologues that inhabited Michael Bloomberg's Department of Education. That's precisely the sort of judgment that keeps me from signing a loyalty oath to UFT-Unity. In other large cities, terrible deals went through as well, resulting in large numbers of bad ratings.

At some point, Iannuzzi angered the powers that be at the AFT. I have it on very good authority this is all about the endorsement of Andrew Cuomo at the AFL-CIO. While NYSUT's neutrality last time was not a problem, a NO vote from NYSUT would cost Cuomo the AFL-CIO endorsement. To be clear, Cuomo ran on a platform of going after unions, and there is no way on God's green earth he merits their endorsement or our silence. In any case, Lee Cutler, Maria Neira, and Kathleen Donahue declined to go along to get along. They, along with Iannuzzi, literally placed their careers on the line.

To me, that speaks of character. It's a whole lot different from supporting mayoral control, Common Core, and VAM just because you've signed a loyalty oath to support any damn thing you're told. That's what we have in NYC. And if you don't believe it, ask Andrew Pallotta, the member of the board who spent the last year running a coup rather than working in our interests. He signed the loyalty oath, or he wouldn't be where he is today.

I don't recall Pallotta saying one word against the APPR agreement when Mulgrew and Iannuzzi introduced it. For one thing, that would have been in abject violation of the Unity loyalty oath, and Pallotta is a former UFT-Unity District Representative. Pallotta's job in 2005 had to entail running around cheerleading for the disastrous 2005 contract, the one that reduced veteran teachers into wandering members of the Absent Teacher Reserve, a handy dumping place for teachers whose schools have been closed by Bloomberg. UFT failed to anticipate that Bloomberg's DOE would keep hiring teachers even as thousands of our members sat in the ATR. I love to teach. I would be miserable as a traveling ATR.

The legislative branch of NYSUT is run by Executive Vice President Andrew Pallotta. Thought they're vocal on APPR, I don't hear a whole lot from his side about the Gap Elimination Adjustment that starves our schools, the tax cap that keeps localities from compensating for it, ever-rising tuition at state schools, or the complete sellout to monied interests in the Moskowitz Budget. They don't talk much about Pallotta sending NYSUT staffers to campaign for UFT fave Bill Thompson. Maybe Pallotta didn't realize NYC Mayor was not actually a state race.

Maybe throwing a million bucks at Bill Thompson was not a great idea for the UFT. Moskowitz and her merry pals managed to buy Andy Cuomo for only 800K, so perhaps we could've outbid her. Who knows?

Here's what I know, though. An Executive VP who jumps when Mike Mulgrew or Randi Weingarten whistles is going to keep doing so for the next three years, and is sure to pick running mates who'll do the same. Sure, it's fantastic to go over five years without a raise and have the worst APPR in the state. If that's the sort of model you favor, you ought to vote for Revive NYSUT.

In fact, the only reason Iannuzzi and Stronger Together are being opposed is they've taken a principled stand against the "seat at the table" politics that have failed again and again in both city and state. And every one of the UFT-Unity chapter leaders who've signed the oath will have to vote for same old same old or face the traditional pariah status of those who've been shunned by leadership.

I'm an acolyte of Diane Ravitch. I'm always amazed that my politics, favored by just about every informed UFT teacher, preclude my participation in union activities. I'm even more amazed that leadership can hawk crap programs like VAM, Common Core, and mayoral control and stay in. Of course, that may have to do with the fact that over 80% of working UFT members don't deem it worth their time or effort to fill out an X on a form. That's the UFT-Unity model, and that's the model that will be replicated statewide if Revive NYSUT wins.

I'm not afraid of union leadership, and I'm not afraid to tell them when they're wrong. I only wish they weren't wrong with such alarming and predictable frequency. I certainly hope the delegates at NYSUT understand what they're voting for. If they want voices that will speak up for what's right, they'll vote for Stronger Together, Beth Dimino, me, and the MORE slate, which features my favorite chapter leader, James Eterno. (It was James who first called Richard Iannuzzi most improved union leader.)

After getting to know him just a little bit, I couldn't agree more.

Statement of Candidacy for NYSUT Executive Vice-President

I’m very proud to teach ESL at Francis Lewis High School, one of the largest schools in NYC, where I am also UFT chapter leader.

When repeatedly failed schemes, like merit pay, are promoted by Governor Cuomo, NYSUT needs strong leaders. NYSUT needs to represent all teachers, whether or not they support mayoral control, VAM, or Common Core. I’ve written in the NY Daily News and elsewhere against all these corporate reforms, and as a result, have been shut out of participation in NYSUT and AFT by UFT leadership.

Former AFT President David Selden wrote that teachers were expelled from the invitation-only UFT-Unity caucus for opposing the Vietnam War. A half-century later, little has changed within UFT-Unity. Our elections are winner-take-all, and all our NYSUT and AFT reps are hand-picked by UFT-Unity, which demands a signed oath to publicly support its positions. I can’t and won’t support baseless, counter-productive corporate reforms. I’ve opted to use the press instead.

UFT-Unity twice failed to oppose mayoral control in NYC, where it’s amounted to mayoral dictatorship. Nationally, mayoral control has enabled people like Gates, Broad and the Waltons to foist their anti-union notions upon public schools.

We know Common Core has never been tested anywhere. We know teachers, parents, and students all over NY are suffering due to its developmentally inappropriate expectations. John King labels vocal parents and teachers special interests, but sits mute when corporate-backed Students First NY monopolizes forums to shut parents, teachers, and students out.

VAM, as Diane Ravitch writes, is junk science. AFT President Randi Weingarten now says, “VAM is a sham.” Rather than co-write laws that can enable our brother and sister teachers to lose jobs over junk science, we should work toward crafting something supportive and research-based. In NYC, leadership boasted we’d negotiate a fair evaluation system, but we ended up having one forced on us by John King.

In fact, John King is right about one thing. We are a special interest. Our special interest is the children of New York State. Despite media voices proclaiming otherwise, we want our students to have the very best teachers and learning conditions. We want to foster readers and thinkers, and we won’t achieve that by restricting instruction to corporate-designed learning modules and script-reading, clock-watching teachers.

We want our kids to think freely and independently. Let’s set an example by promoting free and independent thought within our own union.

Epic Fail at UFT Leadership

I've been speaking to heads of other locals, and they're pretty shocked when they hear we've gone over five years without a raise. They tell me if that happened where they are, they'd have been voted out. Of course, where they are, it's not customary for over 80% of their members to sit out elections.

Now of course Unity-New Action stalwarts will say, oh, it's Bloomberg, it's not our fault, what could we do, blah blah blah, but it is in fact, the job of leadership to negotiate contracts, and this they have not done since 2007, if I recall correctly. They said this was the last contract they'd have to negotiate under Bloomberg, and who would've anticipated they'd be correct and sit through his entire third term without getting anything done?

Actually, it's the job of leadership to anticipate such things. When you have a megalomaniac billionaire mayor with no hope of becoming President, someone who will drop 100 million for reelection just as easily as you or I might buy a cup of coffee, you have to wonder what he will do next. Clearly leadership did not anticipate he might just decide to buy himself a third term.

They did have leverage, of course. A UFT rep came to my school and told hundreds of UFT members that leadership was very smart, and made a very strategic decision. There was a new law, they told us, the APPR law that made sure all teachers would be rated by junk science objective measures. This was necessary, of course, because the current system was inadequate and principals could rate teachers any way they wished. It was much better to use junk science multiple measures. That way, any teacher who got two negative ratings could get a one-way ticket to Palookaville a validator who could better determine whether or not a teacher had to prove a negative a plan for helping the teacher get lost improve.

The important point, though, was that in order to follow the new law the union helped negotiate, we needed a new evaluation plan. In order for Mayor Bloomberg to get us that plan, we had to have a contract, so all teachers would get their raise. But when Mayor Bloomberg decided not to give us the contract he'd granted other unions, and made a threat to lay off teachers, the union said, "Hey, why not forget about laying off teachers and just send ATR teachers all over the place week to week? We'll get our DA to rubber stamp it."

At the DA, UFT reps told me the DOE would never be able to send ATRs all over the place week to week. They were too inept, said multiple DA reps, and surely that was the Unity-New Action line. Turns out they were wrong again.

Not only that, but they decided to negotiate an APPR plan in absence of a contract. Members in my school ask me to bring that UFT rep back so they can scream at him. Personally, I fail to see that as a productive use of our time, but I understand how they feel. I went with three delegates to vote against the APPR plan, as I don't believe in junk science at any percentage. We'd have lost overwhelmingly of course, as the DA is dominated by UFT Unity reps who vote as they are told. People who vote as they are told, in the UFT, are known as "activists."

Turns out, Bloomberg decided to take his ball and go home, and whatever was negotiated is top secret to us lowly members. Leadership says it was better than what we got, and we're left to hope they're more reliable than the guy who came to my school and promised us a contract.

UFT leadership made the astounding determination, based on what I have no idea, that Reformy John King was an unbiased arbiter, and that he would make a fair decision. Thus, all UFT teachers are now observed  4 to 6 times, though neither UFT nor DOE wanted that much observation. I have the feeling that if you wanted to sell me a car for a thousand dollars, and I wanted to pay five hundred, John King would either make me pay two thousand or have you pay me to take it.

In any case, we got a system, and Michael Bloomberg immediately boasted to the press that he'd gotten the most draconian system in the state and that he'd given nothing whatsoever for it. And what's worse is he was absolutely right.

Here are the facts:

1. UFT leadership failed to procure a contract.
2. UFT leadership, despite a long history, failed to anticipate the intransigence of Michael Bloomberg, and
3. UFT leadership, despite having a hand in writing the APPR legislation, is the only leadership in the entire state that failed to negotiate an APPR agreement.

Not the proudest record, if you ask me. And the old, old song, "It wasn't our fault," is hardly what we need from leadership.

Vouchers in NY--Curiouser and Curiouser

Look at the news today and you see this, a story about how NY State is looking at back-door vouchers. You see, rather than give you money back for tuition, you'll simply get a tax-credit for donations to the school of your choice.

This will cost the state 300 million dollars, and half of it will be earmarked for private school scholarships. Make no mistake, this is yet another attack on the institution of public school.

Don't think your local religious school is going to embrace students like mine, who know little English, or students with other special needs, or the alternate assessment students not on track to graduate. My school takes all comers, and that's why the state ought to support us, as opposed to Andy Cuomo's deep-pocketed BFFs.

There are powerful supporters behind the legislation, and they're directing hundreds of thousands of dollars to lawmakers who sign on. 

That's what it's all about in Andy Cuomo's New York, unfortunately. And that's why it's a bad idea for NYSUT to be purchasing $10,000 tables at Cuomo's birthday bash. We can't compete with the money DFER and their hedgefund buds can dish out. We ought not to have to. We represent the children of this state, not just the ones private schools and charters think can boost their stats, but all of them, no matter what.

And while Cuomo, King and Tisch blather on about the importance of Common Core and judging teachers by junk science, the state is getting ready to pump huge money into schools required to do none of the above. If it's so vital that Cuomo cannot contemplate a delay, how on earth can he support legislation to promote schools not required to follow rules?

Cuomo came into office vowing to go after unions, and our legislature appears to be supporting that goal even as we speak. Call your state senator and assemblyperson and ask them to vote against this. Money talks to Governor Cuomo even as he pays lip service to the multitudes who spoke out against Common Core.

We can't show the governor the sort of numbers DFER can. But we showed up in huge numbers for the traveling King-Tisch vaudeville show, and that can't be the last time we do it.

Major Moskowitz Meltown Comes Courting Cuomo

It's all over whatever it is that used to be Gotham Schools. Eva and her buds are upset. Apparently, when de Blasio said charters might have to pay rent, he was referring to none other than charters that have a lot of money. You know, the ones that are so flush with cash they can lay out a half a mil a year for someone like Eva.

That's why they've given almost a million bucks to our good pal Andy Cuomo. You know, the self-proclaimed student lobbyist. Only it turns out our student lobbyist has no power over education, and every screw-up is the fault of the Regents, over which he has no control whatsoever. Unless, of course, they mess with the APPR system that judges gym teachers on math tests, and all teachers on Common Core tests. That's sacrosanct, and though student lobbyist Cuomo has no say over eduction, he will not bend on New York's precious junk science.

Also, student lobbyist Cuomo is lobbying for merit pay. Just because it's been around for a hundred years and has never worked anywhere is no reason to give up on it. Who knows how many teachers are holding back the good stuff until they can make an extra few thousand dollars a year? Those are the kind of teachers Governor Andy wants to encourage, because there's no better motivation to help children than money.

Governor Andy knows a lot about the motivating power of money. That's why Eva and her hedge fund pals are rushing to him. After all, every dime that they pay in rent will be a dime's less profit, or possibly even a dime out of the pocket of Eva herself. This, of course, is unacceptable. Perhaps Eva and Andy, being motivated by money, cannot conceive of why anyone would be otherwise.

I like money. I haven't had a raise in over five years, and I could use a little more. I have a kid I need to put through college. Of course if I had a salary like Eva's I could send her to Harvard. Nonetheless, I'm not holding back anything from my students.

But now that Eva has lost her hotline to Tweed, who has she got? Apparently, she's got Governor Cuomo, the Democrat who goes after unions, the one who never met a reform he didn't like. Proof-shmoof. If DFER thinks it's a good idea, if they send him yet another ten thousand bucks, and if they want it, that's good enough for him.

It's almost like having Mike Bloomberg up in Albany. Now that Cuomo's ego doesn't need to compete with Bloomberg's, now that the man at Gracie Mansion is not a fanatical ideologue, just about anything reformy looks good to Andy Cuomo.

The Seat at the Table

This is something our leadership always appears to want. And it's certainly true that it pays to talk to everyone. I'm not a big fan of Bill Gates, but you never know. Maybe one day, even someone as impervious to fact and science as he appears to be may decide to listen. But since there's little evidence to support that supposition, it's best not to bet the farm on it.

For example, there was the Gates Measures of Effective Teaching study, and we participated. Basically, this study wanted to determine what teachers could do to get better test scores. At my school Gates reps pretty much confused everyone, and gave us mixed messages on what they were trying to do. Fast forward to 2014, and we're being evaluated by test scores. The underlying assumption of the Gates study was that teacher effectiveness could be determined by test scores, despite no evidence to support it.

There's a lot of talk about how we could opt for portfolios, projects, or whatever. Unfortunately there's no evidence to support the assumption that any of these determine teacher effectiveness either. The mania to quantify teacher effectiveness may be something worth addressing, but until we can do so with some degree of confidence or accuracy, we ought not to be accepting of (let alone directly negotiating) abject nonsense.

To show our good faith, we allowed Gates to keynote an AFT convention. In gratitude, Gates turned around and trashed teacher pensions the following week.

We've supported mayoral control in NYC, twice, giving Mayor Bloomberg and his merry band of fanatical ideologues carte blanche to close almost every comprehensive high school in the city. Though Gates himself abandoned the push for small schools, we're stuck with them everywhere. As for union, this means a whole lot of schools staffed with untenured teachers who, understandably, won't stand for chapter leader. Thus principals can do whatever they want, contractual or otherwise.

We sold out teachers of closing schools, particularly those with experience, and sent them out as permanent subs. We exacerbated this situation by agreeing to have them move about week to week, school to school. Ostensibly, this was to preclude Bloomberg firing teachers. But since his dreams of further trashing seniority rights were not realized, it's hard to imagine he'd have really opted to fire the lowest-paid teachers he had.

Though a UFT rep came to my school to assure us that no APPR program would occur without a new contract, we gave up the best leverage we had to achieve on and agreed to allow Reformy John King to arbitrate it. Which great mind in the union determined him to be impartial I have no idea, but King managed, among other things, to impose more observations than either UFT or DOE wanted. Bloomberg rightly boasted of achieving the most draconian system in the state and giving nothing for it.

It's time to get that seat at the table, but the union has been aiming for the wrong seat all along. It's ridiculous to appease the corporate reformers and fool ourselves into thinking they and their pals in the media would stop trashing us simply because we've given them what they want.

It's time for our union leadership to give a seat at the table to union members who are tired of reformy nonsense that hurts teachers and working people. It's time to step out of the echo chamber and take a look around. New Yorkers know that Common Core has never been tested anywhere. New Yorkers know from experience it hurts children.

It's time for us to step over, onto the right side of history. Baseless nonsense will not stand. Let's not squander our resources enabling it and pretending it's temporary. Let's tell the truth and wake up the sleeping giant that is our membership. Let's show them we aren't just going along for the ride.

Our time is now. Let's build our own table, invite New York's parents and children, and make Gates grovel for a place if he wants one.

The Elastic and Amazing Andrew Cuomo

A few years back, things in New York were not nearly reformy enough. Kids were going to school, teachers were going to school, and there was not nearly enough high blood pressure. For example, supervisors would observe teachers, determine whether or not they were doing a good job, and advise them. This was awful. It did not take into account how students do on tests, which is of course the only thing that happens in school that merits any consideration whatsoever.

So Andy Cuomo got together with union leaders and worked out a deal. From now on, state test scores would account for 20% of teacher ratings, local assessments would be another 20%, and anyone rated ineffective on these "objective" measures would be rated ineffective overall. Unions would negotiate these measures, except for the UFT, which allowed thoroughly impartial John King to impose one.

So Andy Cuomo called himself the student lobbyist, because only he could stand up and make sure junk science, the most reliable measure on earth, was used to rate their teachers. This was the only way to make sure kids had good teachers, because test scores were entirely dependent on teachers, and whether or not the kids were taken care of at home played no part whatsoever in these vital scores.

And when the Regents attempted to delay junk science rating of teachers, based on Common Core tests that 70% of kids failed, Governor Cuomo was outraged. He stood up and said this was unacceptable. The Regents backed down immediately and stopped even hinting of such changes. After all, it's important to rate NY teachers on tests 70% of kids fail. It's not conceivable that the kids could fail the completely new tests because they've never been prepared for them, or because they've been taught different methodology since they started school years ago. Or because they don't speak English, or because they have learning disabilities, or because they're poor, or because they're abused or neglected, or because the tests are based on standards that have never been tested.

Andrew Cuomo knows better, because he's governor. Testing must go on. As long as rich people don't pay additional taxes, everything in his state is fine.

But the other day he saw New Yorkers protesting Common Core. Apparently they, his constituents, don't like it when 70% of their children fail tests. So Governor Cuomo took the incredibly bold position that the Regents were completely independent and did whatever the hell they wanted. It wasn't his fault they screwed everything up. After all, he appointed a commission full of Common Core supporters to study the matter, and who could ask for more than that?

Because just like tests, Governor Cuomo is infallible, and nothing is ever his fault.

On Junk Science Evaluation--Garbage In, Garbage Out

Shockingly, NY State is encountering problems with its new evaluation system. According to Newsday, teachers can rate effective in test passing percentages, yet rate developing overall. Alas, such are the exigencies of a system that is created based on wishful thinking and a desire to fire teachers for no particular reason.

Actually, what is shocking about this story is not that there are problems with APPR, but rather that the state admitted it. It's been pretty much standard fare for Reformy John King and Silent Merryl Tisch to nod their wooden heads, offer minor and insubstantial tweaks, and then go on their merry way. Governor Andrew Cuomo has staked his educational reputation on junk science, and believes in it deeply. Teachers must be rated by untested Common Core tests and judged by junk science, or he will have forsaken his self-appointed post as student lobbyist.

After all, Cuomo is doing his part to make sure we don't raise taxes on the rich or fritter away money paying teachers, and he'd rather assign the death penalty to schools with low test scores than fund them adequately. It makes for good sound bites on the news, and it makes Governor Andy popular with deep-pocketed folks like DFER, but it doesn't help our kids.

Sadly, demagogues like Andy Cuomo earn support not only from astroturfers and would-be robber barons, but also top faux-Democrats like Barack Obama, who happily allow their subordinates to cheer baseless school closings and ignore blatant misdeeds on Wall Street. This is the new Democratic Party, the one that leaves working people bleeding on the street while ensuring rich people don't pay another cent. With Democrats like Cuomo and Obama, I sometimes wonder why we need Republicans.

Of course, in NY State, it's tough to imagine a GOP candidate unseating Cuomo. Not only that, but it's also tough to imagine a GOP candidate that would favor working people any more than Cuomo. So it appears we haven't got a whole lot of choice here in NY State.

This notwithstanding, the fact is New Yorkers have had enough of Common Core nonsense, and all over the state parents and teachers told King and Tisch the same story (with the exception of one NYC session taken over by astroturf Students First NY). It's unfortunate that it's taken developmentally inappropriate instruction based on nothing to wake up our residents, but the fact is we know it's NOT true that 70% of our kids are failing to learn.

What will it take before pols like Cuomo listen to the will of the people rather than that of the hedge-fund dabblers in public education?

Is Reformy John King's Decree Worse Than NY Times Thinks?

There's a piece in the NY Times all about the issues with the new evaluation system. They're the paper of record, so it must be accurate. I've no idea how large the school is, but I'm sure the Times reporter carefully considered its application to large schools, and understands completely what it means in a large school where APs are in charge of maybe 40 teachers a piece. After all, reporters get paid for that sort of thing.

On the other hand, the reporter estimates under the assumption that observers will not spend more than 15 minutes a piece on informal observations. In this astral plane, it's unlikely many observations by responsible admin are 15 minutes. Teachers tell me admin usually stays at least 25 minutes, and often wait until whatever activity they're engaged in is completed, so as to get a real picture of what's happening. Of course, I'm just someone who talks to working teachers every single day, and not a NY Times reporter, so I guess you can't go by me.


And it's not just the observations. They have to be low-inference and aligned to the Danielson rubric. Responsible administrators have to take copious notes, supposedly reserving any and all value judgments. They then have to align these supposedly non-judgmental notes to the rubric. That's pretty time-consuming and taxing, particularly for people who aren't used to doing such things. I write very fast, but not everyone does. This is going to be very tough for some administrators, particularly if teachers are sharp enough to catch them when they offer judgments with little or no evidence.

In my school, an AP is responsible for 30 or 40 teachers. At maybe 200 per year, that makes more than one observation per day. APs who are not in the habit of writing regularly are going to have a really tough time of it. I know APs who write well who are having an even tougher time of it. Being conscientious, they labor over every word. I've actually had administrators, who don't usually complain to me of such things, say they'd like to take entire days off just so they could get to their writing.

APs are supposed to help teachers who really need support, but haven't got time to devote to those who really needs it. They also haven't got the time to help kids who have problems with teachers. King mandated more observations than either the DOE or UFT requested, according to Gotham Schools. What sort of mediator, when you want to sell a car for $500, and I want to pay $200, charges $1000?

That would be the esteemed Mr. King.

In our school, the principal has decided that anyone who wished to change from option one or two was free to do so. I recently spoke to an AP who was delighted that two department members decided to go from six observations to a mere four. It was like a Christmas gift.

That's four down, and a million to go.

How Do We Make the Best of What We Have?

Think all you want, about whatever you like, but face it, folks, the state evaluation law isn't gonna disappear within the week. Cuomo is all Hamlet over whether or not he has to take action on Common Core, and can't be bothered considering the stupid evaluation law. Unless it helps him in his quest to take Obama's job, the only important thing in his narrow universe, you can bet he won't spend one minute even considering it.

Doubtless he's hoping the statewide outrage will just blow over, or John and Silent Merryl will be able to skillfully persuade the public that corporate reform is a good thing. Meanwhile, we're stuck with this vindictive, baseless, piece of crap law.

As I wrote yesterday, I find it insane that so many observations are required. Perhaps we could agree to a lower minimum and make this a less grueling process. Maybe there could be alternates to written observations. Teachers could do peer observations. Teachers could share best practices at PD. Teachers could contribute to the school community in all sorts of ways. Why does it have to come down to the same thing over and over?

Is the Danielson Framework as odious as the junk science evaluation? Honestly, it isn't to me. Perverting it into a gotcha system is awful, and that's always been the goal of Bloomberg's Tweedies. But I'm not yet persuaded it's remotely as trashy as the junk-science testing at the heart of this law. If I'm wrong, please feel free to tell me why.

Nonetheless, we live in a country where obscenely wealthy Bill Gates can simply buy free reign to dictate education policy to public schools. That's why states all over the country are using a methodology proven to work absolutely nowhere to rate teachers. The already lame defense, that our state is using only 40% while some other is using 50, 60, or whatever, becomes absolutely ridiculous in that if you fail, it becomes 100.

It's gonna take a long time to fix or change that ridiculous law. Bad ideas have lives of their own, and any attempts to change this will be met with predicable cries that teachers want to escape so-called accountability. Accountability, of course, means being able to fire as many teachers as possible, for any reason or none at all.

Meanwhile, we're stuck. We have an incoming mayor, finally, who appears to be not insane. Let's make a wish list of what changes we want to see. I assume no one loves Reformy John's plan, which was probably written by his privately paid interns, the ones who are accountable to billionaires rather than taxpayers, the ones who don't worry about those nasty ethics rules that encumber private employees.

I know we want a contract. I know we haven't had a raise in years. But what changes, specifically, should we ask of the NYC APPR agreement right now?

You Teachers Cannot Be Trusted. Or Compensated.

That's why Reformy John King decreed that you need to be observed 4-6 times per year. After all, who knows what the hell it is you do in that classroom if you aren't under constant surveillance? Bill Gates liked to say that administrators could only visit classrooms once per year. That is, of course, utterly without foundation, but everyone listens to him since he has all that money.

Gotham Schools, in analyzing the King decree, said that neither the DOE nor the UFT wanted this many observations. Yet King, who the union incredibly accepted as an impartial arbitrator, unilaterally decreed more. One potentially good thing is the worst supervisors, facing hundreds of observations per year, may have less time to harass teachers for no reason. Of course, who knows whether or not they're expressing their inner dirtbag on those Danielson check-off sheets? UFT has established a reporting portal, and if supervisors show patterns of idiocy or vindictiveness, there may be some remedy.

Of course, we have no idea what the incoming mayor may negotiate. There is talk of everything being in flux, but it's unlikely we'll see any substantive changes without a contract, and regrettably I have to doubt that will be a quick fix. I'm encouraged that UFT reps I know are now acknowledging that we are two contracts behind, because for the last few years they appeared to have forgotten. Working teachers know that almost all unions got an 8% raise with virtually no givebacks during the 2008-2010 round of pattern bargaining. So while the incoming mayor can offer a crap pattern for new contracts, it will be tough for him to explain why we should take an effective 8% salary cut going forward. That would mean all those draconian givebacks we took in 05 were largely for nothing.

Let's hope Michael Mulgrew doesn't approach us saying to forget that round with yet another chorus of, "That's the best we can do."

Will UFT move to initiate a more reasonable observation system? It's tough to say. I've heard UFT reps maintain teachers do better with multiple observations, and there's some validity to that. How many teachers used to get observed once by an administrator looking to give a U-rating, who predictably determined said teacher sucked and indeed merited one?

While that's a problem, a more reasonable system would make administrators focus multiple visits on teachers deemed in need of improvement. If someone is doing a good job, excessive scrutiny is not only unmerited, but wasteful. It places undue stress on the teacher, and undue time demands on the supervisor.

The job of the supervisor ought to be supporting teachers who need it. And if we are to have a productive system, we ought not to waste supervisor time making hundreds of unwarranted visits to teachers who don't need their help.

High School Students Expose Tweed Incompetence

You read this, but you just can't believe it. The geniuses at Tweed thought it was a good idea to give those tests to find out how badly city teachers suck, and decided to post the answers online. Curious high school students, who got to think about the test answers overnight, looked it up online and voila! There it was. The city's reaction:

“This should not have happened. It was a mistake, and there will be no negative impact on students or teachers,” said spokesman Devon Puglia. “Principals will have latitude to deal with any problems this causes and, as always, we will thoroughly review any anomalies in the data and make adjustments if necessary. We are assessing the situation and thank the students at Curtis High School for bringing this to our attention.”

If that doesn't inspire confidence, what does? Your students have taken a baseline test to see what progress you'll have made by June. Only on the baseline, they got to look up sample responses online.  It's pretty clear that would alter the results. It's also pretty clear when you give thousands of kids a test on All Quiet on the Western Front, there are all sorts of online resources they could use for commentary and suggestions.

So even if the geniuses who posted answers on the website had not done so, it's ridiculous to assume that you can fairly assess the interpretations of students. If you let me read something today and answer questions about it tomorrow, I can read CliffNotes, SparkNotes, BookRags, and 500 other things online that will make undue thinking on my part thoroughly unnecessary.

And let's be honest here--if the geniuses who designed these assessments are stupid enough to put them online, how good could the tests be anyway?

Take a good look at the two students in the picture, because they're among the best education reporters in New York City. They attend public school and managed to do this largely without the benefit of Common Core.

In Which I Broaden My Horizons

I'm the chapter leader of a very large school. As a consequence, people complain to me about everything. Why doesn't the faucet work in the ladies' room? How come the kid in my third row hasn't been suspended? Why can't you get us a new contract?

I muddle through as best I can, and I get a little better at it each year. I help everyone I can, and if I can't, I can usually find someone who can. But the questions this year are fundamentally different.

Where has the joy gone, they ask. I used to think it was a privilege to have this job and to be able to teach these kids. Now they give me reading lists of things neither I nor anyone in the known universe wants to read. You know, they don't want joy. They want rigor. Who the hell wakes up in the morning and wishes for rigor? Do people other than John King walk around wishing one another a rigorous day?

Teachers come to me and talk of their children. They used to love school. Now they pretend they're sick and don't even want to get out of bed. Should 8-year-old children be behaving like that? My daughter used to read every night. Now she does homework until ten or eleven o' clock and doesn't have time for that. My son can't understand the math in his book. I had to go to his school, pretend he had left something in his desk, and photograph every page of his math book on my iPad. Then I had to get someone to explain it to me so I could explain it to him.

Now administrators are complaining to me. This is unusual because my job is supposed to entail complaining to them. They ask what I'm going to do about it. My kid has given up. He demands to go out and play with his friends. I refuse until he finishes his homework, but rather than do so, he'll sit in his room motionless until bedtime.

My kid's teacher is teaching history by posting 5 million facts on the board. My kid's supposed to memorize them and regurgitate them for the test. This is what passes for high-level thinking under Common Core. Teachers are beaten down. Children are beaten down. And at forums across the state, John King and Merryl Tisch are shouted down. They say, "We hear you," and happily do the same thing. They don't need to worry because their kids go to private schools that don't treat children like this.

I have never seen so many people so dispirited and beaten down. I don't feel it for myself because I'm kind of fatalistic. I've had a good run, I still love what I do, and I am 100% positive I know better than Tisch, King or Gates what my students need. If they fire me for junk science, so be it. I'll get by.

But whatever they do, I will do everything in my power to get the truth out, and to make sure children and teachers who come after us don't have to suffer through such nonsense. King and Tisch can sit and pretend to listen today, tomorrow, or a hundred times more.

But those of us who care about education will not shut up, will not give up, will not give them one moment's peace until their agenda serves us and our children, rather than Gates, Walton, Broad, and all the other billionaires who wouldn't spit on us or our children if we were on fire.

Reformy King John Pretends to Listen

I watched the hearings last night broadcast over the internet from Port Chester, NY. It appeared to me that parents there, while not raising their voices quite as much, had precisely the same concerns as the Poughkeepsie parents Reformy John labeled "special interests." The standards, they said, were rolled out without any proof of their validity, there is incessant testing, first graders are circling multiple choice answers instead of learning--you know, the usual nonsense that does nothing to help Pearson's bottom line.

The woman who moderated regularly scolded the troublesome parents to stop talking, that their two minutes were up, and got impatient when people who'd waited three hours to speak demanded the chance. She then spoke about how wonderful it was that King John gave them an additional few minutes rather than turning them away like dogs.

This article, evidently trying to be "balanced," appears to quote extensively from some Common Core propaganda sheet or other in between reporting what real people actually said:

Common Core is a state-led effort that seeks to provide consistent standards and appropriate benchmarks for all students, regardless of where they live, and prepare them for college and the workforce. It is a product of bipartisan effort by the National Governors and the Council of Chief State School Officers and was developed in collaboration with teachers, school administrators and experts.

I'm wondering who those teachers were. Certainly no one ever consulted me or anyone I know. I also suppose, as did one of the speakers, that neither I nor anyone I know was prepared for college, since I've never been exposed to the wonders of Common Core. The article also quotes someone who didn't actually speak in order to provide a pro-Common Core point of view. But the speakers I heard had no love for it, or for Reformy John. One demanded, to applause, that he be fired.

King John said the state was doing a swell job protecting student privacy. I trust the King about as far as I can throw him. Leonie Haimson, who actually cares about public school children, says otherwise, and I believe her.  Reformy John also said would entertain minor changes, but that he was fully committed to both Common Core and junk science evaluations.  I would very much like to see King committed, but I'd prefer it be to an institution from which he can do no further harm to our students.

It appears to me all we got from the King last night was the lip service he saw as beneath him in Poughkeepsie. I don't believe he will entertain the UFT's request for a moratorium on high stakes, as that might somehow affect the bottom line of Pearson and his other billionaire BFFs to whom he answers. Ex-NYC Schools Chancellor Joel Klein was able to take his position and get a cool gig working for Murdoch. Why would King want to jeopardize his golden parachute simply because his programs fail the students, parents, and teachers of New York State?

After all, tuition at those fancy Montessori schools doesn't grow on trees, and the King doesn't want to have his own kids stuck in the same drill and kill system he so passionately defends for ours.

Teachers Suffer, UFT Leadership Spins

This comment from professional Unity-New Action apologist Peter Goodman appears at Gotham Schools:

On the just released state teacher evaluation 50% of teachers were "highly effective" and 41% "effective" with 1% "ineffective," these do include NYC, our plan just started, so, just maybe, teachers were overreacting .. On the grades 3-8 scores teachers in NYC scored considerably better than the rest of the state.
Take a deep breath, maybe the guys and gals who negotiated the plan on the union side knew what they were doing.

It's a fact that VAM has never proven to be effective, and it's a fact that anyone who fails the junk science part of this plan must be rated ineffective overall. It's another fact that city teachers can get those ratings based on test results of kids they've never met, let alone taught. No one even understands this system we have, and I see no evidence that Goodman is the exception that proves the rule. In case he thinks those stats preclude problems for teachers over junk science VAM, take a good look at Syracuse.

In Syracuse, for example, fully 40 percent of the teachers were deemed to be “developing” or “ineffective” and must create improvement plans — a much higher failure rate than most school systems.

The "guys and gals" who "negotiated" the plan on the union side left it in the hands of John King, in case anyone forgot, and are busily reminding us the plan they'd negotiated with DOE was better. This, of course, is after they assured us this plan was great because we could negotiate it, which we did not. According to Gotham Schools, arbitrator John King imposed more evaluations than either DOE or UFT wanted.

Previously, UFT leadership assured us this plan was great because it was only 40% junk science rather than 50. Like many people, I was surprised to learn that 40 equals 100 when you fail. Frankly, I don't sense UFT credibility on this with working teachers is all that strong anymore.

Illuminating though can be to get the insights of someone long out of the classroom who supports UFT policies all the time no matter what, mayoral control, which we also supported, hasn't worked well for us. Common Core, with no field-testing whatsoever, isn't working out all that great either. Don't just go by teachers--ask parents who watch their young children grappling with developmentally inappropriate tasks. UFT calls for a moratorium on high stakes fall on the same deaf ears that call parents "special interests." If the "guys and gals" did such a swell job, why do we even need a moratorium?

With all due respect, comments like Goodman's don't reflect the remotest notion of what's going on out here with those of us who actually work for a living. While I'm beginning to see this as UFT party line, I hope for all our sakes they come up with something better.

I pity the chapter leader who has to tell members facing high-stakes evaluation, "Take a deep breath, the guys and gals at UFT did a swell job."