Co-teaching, Part 154, This World, and the World of Theory

I'm still at NYSABE. There is a lot of good stuff going on. Everyone here supports ELLs. UFT VP Evelyn de Jesus, speaking this morning, quoted a Czech proverb, You live a new life for every language you speak, and expressed support for tweaking Part 154 so that we could give ELLs the language instruction they need.

Alas, until that happens, we have to deal with what's in front of our faces. That's why I chose to attend a presentation about co-teaching. The presentation was certainly thoughtful. In an ideal world, everyone would follow the practices the presenter espoused. The problem is we're not quite in an ideal world. I made the egregious error of answering two questions before I realized I was thinking about a universe that was not precisely relevant to the topic at hand.

The first question was, "What is co-teaching?" My answer was co-teaching is when the principal says, "You, and you, go teach together." This was not well-received by my group. They said co-teaching is a relationship. It's a marriage. It's a negotiation. They weren't wrong. But I wasn't wrong either.

The presenters weren't totally out of the loop on what goes on. For example, the presenter acknowledged that the ESL teacher often appears to be an educational assistant. The young woman next to me said she often felt that way. In fact, she said, two of the teachers with whom she co-teaches don't even acknowledge her presence in the room.

So think about that. If co-teaching is a marriage, this young woman is conducting at least three marriages concurrently. I don't know about you, but that's a high bar for me. If we really wish these things to work, why are we setting such impossible standards? The presenter said when you have issues with your co-teacher, the best thing to do is go out for a drink or something. Don't go to the principal and complain. As the person who's often in the room with the principal and the co-teachers who've complained, I couldn't agree more. Alas, it's always too late.

The second time I opened my mouth I made yet another faux pas. What's the main issue with co-teaching? The main issue, I said, was that the English language was not regarded as sufficiently important under Part 154 to be regarded as a subject. Another attendee took exception to that. "Did you try telling your co-teacher about specific English errors, as opposed to simply labeling them "awkward?"

Now she isn't wrong about that. Were I paired up with the science teacher I might be able to offer specific suggestions on how to more effectively improve composition skills. She thought I was expressing some sort of feeling of inferiority or envy, as though I weren't being appreciated. That's not the case at all. I have multiple certifications, and I don't actually need to co-teach.

What I'm talking about is the fact that these co-taught ESL classes come at the expense of direct English instruction, something my kids direly need. There is simply no substitute for it. How would you like to go to China and be placed in a Chinese history class taught entirely in Chinese? Would it help you if I gave you five vocabulary words every day? Would it help you if I had a Chinese as a second language teacher wandering around the room to give you tips on what the hell the other teacher was talking about? Maybe a little, but probably not remotely enough for you to learn Chinese history.

Under CR Part 154, what really happens when you plant the ESL teacher in the science class? As someone who struggled with science in my native language, I don't really see how I could be expected to learn not only science, but also a new language, especially in the same time native speakers learned only science. No matter how many good ideas you have about co-teaching, that's an insurmountable obstacle right there. Furthermore, it's made worse by the fact that the ESL teacher likely has several other co-teachers and little or no time to consult with any of them.

The presenter said two heads are better than one. That's potentially true. Last year I was in a great co-teaching situation. After having mediated between bitter pairs of teachers for years, I told my boss I never wanted to co-teach. Unfortunately, I'd also told her how quick-witted and smart I found one of our new teachers. My AP, to prove me wrong yet again, paired me up with her and we got along very well. Our only issue was how fast we did things. I make decisions very quickly, and she always wanted to think about things. "We have no time for that!" I'd tell her, but she persisted. Nonetheless, whenever I got called out to some stupid meeting somewhere, I had absolute confidence my students were well-cared for.

Co-teaching would be great if we were actually adding something. Under Part 154, we add a co-teacher, but we take away a fundamental element of language learning, to wit, time. You don't acquire a language simply by wishful thinking and good intentions. Adding a co-teacher to one period does not mitigate the fact that you've subtracted another period of direct English instruction. Not only have you failed to compensate for that, but you've also taken time away from the core subject by adding language instruction to it.

Hey, it's great for co-teachers to get along. And it's great to add extra classroom support. But in New York State, they're attacking the problem backwards. If you couldn't climb a mountain in one day, I'd suggest you take two or three days to do it. New York State says do it in half a day, but here, bring someone with you.

How stupid is that?

Hell Freezes Over

Photo notwithstanding, this isn't about the Eagles. I'm just sitting here pretty much in shock that anyone from UFT would recruit me to do anything whatsoever. But it just happened nonetheless.

It's been a very interesting but bumpy ride for me on this blog. I started in 2005, with a view toward defending the UFT against the slings and arrows of the press, which seemed to hate us and everything we ever did. I had written a few times for New York Teacher, and they were the first people who ever paid me to write.  That said, I had personally taken exception to the 2002 Contract for adding time. Given that we had recently taken zero percent increases, I saw further such increases as a way to wipe out any gains and effectively leave us working extra time for free.

Shortly thereafter the 2005 Contract showed up. I had been in negotiations to write for Edwize, the gone but not-much-lamented UFT blog. I found the 2005 Contract to be a virtual abomination, and stating that publicly marked the end of my Edwize career before it even began. So I stayed here, and developed a voice that may have criticized union leadership once or twice, here and there.

I've run for office a few times, and last year, with the support of the MORE Caucus and the high school voters, managed to win a seat on the UFT Executive Board. We go there twice a month and support almost everything Unity brings up. Unity, which outnumbers us by over ten to one, opposes almost everything we bring up. It's a pretty funny position to be in, but you never know when they'll come to their senses.

I've been on an up and down quest to help reform the awful ELL policy called Part 154, and have not had a whole lot of success getting the kind of attention it deserves. I had a journalist all set to write about it, but for whatever reason, we had a lot of back and forth and it never happened. My friend Aixa and I made it all the way to being on TV, but haven't been able to get sustained attention thus far. I was able to help initiate and push a resolution with UFT to reform it, but nothing much has happened since then.

While I was pretty happy about it, I also almost fell off my chair when UFT VP of Education Evelyn de Jesus invited me to the NY State Association for Bilingual Education Conference in White Plains last weekend. I had signed up to do work with a UFT ESL committee, but didn't expect anything to come of it. I spent three days with people who were passionate about the kids I see every day. It was pretty amazing. Evelyn also spoke to me about presenting on future occasions, which surprised me even more. In fact, Regents Chancellor Betty Rosa, who I've been trying in vain to reach out to, actually walked up to me after she spoke and said told me was working on Part 154.

I'm more than happy to work with my union to promote our shared values and help the kids we serve. Fun though it may be fight all the time, this might be a better way to go. It's something I've been urging on this space for some time. We are fighting the worst dangers I've ever seen. Betsy DeVos and Donald Trump would be happy to close every public school in the country, make a few bucks on privatization, and maybe bring back child labor It appears inevitable that the United States will move backward to become a so-called right to work country. And if that isn't enough, my students, from every corner of the globe, are facing fears and dangers worse than I ever thought they'd have to encounter.

So I want to thank Evelyn de Jesus for thinking of me for this. I'm ready to work with UFT to preserve and protect the rights of my students. I'll do whatever I can. If we can give them a better and/ or safer education, I'm up for it. UFT President Michael Mulgrew said, at the conference, that if they came to our schools we're ready to be arrested. I know I am. These kids are like my own children and they've been one of the best parts of my life.

I'm ready to stand for them, to defend them, and to fight for them. I'm thrilled to see UFT leadership feeling the same way, and they have my unqualified support in this.