A Clean Campaign and an Honorable Election

 That's what NYSUT Unity is promising this year. This begs the question, why would anyone expect anything otherwise? If they weren't, there'd be no call to say any such thing.

The wording is curious too. The campaign will be clean, they say, but they don't promise it will be honorable. The election with be honorable, but there's no indication it will be clean. I'm curious why they didn't assign both adjectives to one, or better yet both of these things. If I needed to assert that, I certainly would have clarified. I'd also offer examples rather than just my word. But that's me.

Here's the promise:

A promise for a clean campaign & honorable election - https://t.co/EwaxXUUFSe #unionpride @nysutra2017 @AndyPallotta #RepresentationCounts pic.twitter.com/0Bu6JHYS9r

— NYSUT Unity Caucus (@Unity_Today) February 28, 2017

Yet my sources tell me that NYSUT has yet to agree to debate Stronger Together. Is that honorable? I hear that the implication, for reasons they haven't bothered to enumerate, is that ST Caucus is not honorable. I have my own issues with Stronger Together, but they mostly amount to an honest disagreement. I have very vivid recollections, though, of traveling all over the state to forums with Unity/ Revive, and I recall very well how they were arranged.

The first one was in Long Island, and was pretty much open. We had no idea what the questions would be and each side got a few minutes to answer. I'm pretty sure that anyone in attendance would tell you we kicked their butts all over the place. Alas, of those that followed, all but one was much more tightly controlled. Some entailed everyone reading statements with no interaction. One like that was somewhere in Westchester and run by a Revive supporter.

There was another, in fact, in Saratoga Springs, where they spoke, we responded, and then they got to speak again. Two to one. That's clean and honorable, isn't it? I remember that pretty vividly because I slept in some crappy hotel that night, woke up at maybe 4 AM, and then drove like hell to make it to work the next day. There was one in Newburgh, NY where they said they couldn't show because of work commitments. I felt very little sympathy because I went, drove home in a blinding rainstorm, and made it into work the following day.

March 16th in Mount Kisco there will be a forum, and NYSUT Unity has not yet committed to it, Why? Likely as not because it will follow the same format as the one in Long Island did. I got to observe Andy Pallotta pretty closely over those forums, and I can tell you this--unexpected questions were not his forte. This notwithstanding, fielding questions from your constituents, whatever they may ask, is fundamental.

What Pallotta is good at is reading statements. He's a very good reader. When he has a script he can sound commanding and persuasive. On the other hand, Martin Messner, who happily peddles MetLife/ NYSUT insurance that costs twice as much as Allstate, had trouble with that. This guy, who works with NYSUT finances, did not appear to understand what he was reading. Maybe that's why he can endorse an insurance plan that makes us pay double. Who knows?

Let's talk honorable. Is it clean and honorable to dump the sitting President for acting like a President? Once Richard Iannuzzi took action against Andy Pallotta for supporting a Cuomo gala, his fate was sealed. Iannuzzi curtailed Pallotta's money supply, which was a big no-no. NYSUT finances are a mess, in fact, according to my friend Harris Lirtzman, among others. I'm not sure why that merits re-election. I'm not even sure why the deteriorating pension tiers or the APPR that's brought morale to a low I've never seen in three decades teaching merits it either. In fact, as far as I can tell, the only legislative victory Unity/ Revive achieved was to get double pensions for the officers, so they wouldn't have to go through what they put Lee Cutler through.

How about Karen Magee? I'd heard almost two years ago that she wouldn't be getting a second term, because she somehow labored under the misconception that being elected President meant she was President. A friend of hers told me Magee herself didn't hear about that until January 2017. Anyway, it appears they're now doing away with the fiction that Pallotta doesn't run NYSUT and he's running for President, so we'll grant at least one point for their honesty.

As for clean and honorable argument, the person in charge of the NYSUT Unity campaign feed is purposeful but less than admirable in that he traffics largely in logical fallacy. As far as I can determine, he would not know a proactive argument if one were beating him over the head. His prime argument against Iannuzzi was that he lived like a king because he held meetings in some club they'd joined in Albany. The Unity/ Revive folk said they'd prefer to hold meetings in Starbucks. Hey, Governor Cuomo, meet us at a Starbucks so we can negotiate an APPR that doesn't rely on junk science. How do you suppose that would work out? How many times do you suppose they did that?

The last time I read the NYSUT PR guy he'd posted a personal attack piece against me. Among other things, he called me a part time teacher and a part time unionist. I discovered this piece because AFT President Randi Weingarten tweeted it and commented how good it was. I pointed out, on Twitter, that this managed to libel not only me, but also every working chapter leader in New York City, and Randi took it down. The rest of the post was strawman/ ad hominem nonsense. Several of my friends wrote me that they left comments, but this particular clean and honorable NYSUT Unity guy doesn't post them. That's one way to avoid argument, I guess.

Another, of course, is to refuse to show up to a forum. What about it Andy? Are you willing to debate Michael Lillis? How about you Martin? Ready to debate finance? Are you guys willing to put your money where your mouths are and participate cleanly and honorably? Are you willing to stand alongside your opponents and let the public see how able you are next to them?

Hey, it doesn't matter to me. I'm a New York City high school teacher, and like my 20,000 colleagues, I'm not represented no matter who wins. But since we have the honor of paying your salary and at least one of your pensions regardless, it would be nice to know that your campaign consists of something more than telling us how honorable you are. I have never known anyone, honorable or otherwise, to advertise not to be honorable. Saying how honorable you are, to me, means less than nothing. But hey, any time you want to show me you're honorable, I'm here every day, ready to accept your PR guy's apology.

Alas, if you have any honor, you're also gonna have to stand in public and defend your record, repeatedly, and all over the state. So what's it gonna be, NYSUT Unity? Are you gonna answer unscreened questions? Or are you fraidy-scared?

Inquiring minds want to know.

NYSUT, 3020a, and the Newly Sharpened Sword of Danielson--Burden of Proof Is on You

NYSUT has published a fact sheet on the Cuomo/ Heavy Hearts revision of state APPR. It is less than encouraging, to say the least. The thing that really stands out, the thing I hadn't heard at all before, is this--

• If a teacher receives two consecutive ineffective ratings, the district may bring a 3020-a proceeding and the burden of proof shifts to the teacher with the hearing completed within 90 days.

This is something new. No more UFT Rat Squad, because it's now a LOSE-LOSE. No matter what happens, it's on you to prove you are not incompetent. (Sorry, all you UFT members who took money to rat out your colleagues. Doubtless other opportunities will present themselves. Maybe you can be peer observers.) So if the Boy Wonder Supervisor determines it's time to dump you, you get classes calculated to fail the junk science portion, you get bad writeups, the Boy Wonder sees things that didn't happen, fails to see things that did, and two years later you have to prove he's lying, likely with no evidence whatsoever.

Another interesting development is the Teacher Improvement Plan (TIP). While the UFT agreement states that it should be collaborative, because perhaps you as a teacher have some inkling as to where and how you can improve, the Cuomo/ Heavy Hearts plan does away with that entirely. If the Boy Wonder states you have to do 20 pull ups every lunch period to attain Nirvana, that's pretty much what you have to do.

There is an appeals process, but I'm not clear it will help UFT members who have insane supervisors. There are specific grounds for appeal, but unless you've actually videotaped lessons it won't help teachers with supervisors who make stuff up or selectively rate things.

NYSUT plans to appeal the TIP requirement, and to try to attain more realistic scoring bands. What I don't see is any objection to burden of proof on 3020a or general objection to junk science. Naturally I'm shocked, since I watched all the Revive/ Unity candidates, none of whom lifted a finger to stop the APPR law, relentlessly criticize Richard Iannuzzi for having negotiated it. Oddly, none criticized Mulgrew, who was there at the side.

Since Mulgrew praised the Heavy Hearts for having negotiated this abomination, he owns it. And so does his subsidiary, Revive NYSUT/ Unity.

It is our job to inspire children. How we do that with the Sword of Danielson hanging over our heads is a mystery, to say the least. It's unconscionable that our leader, Mike Mulgrew, expressed support for this abomination. How on earth does he get all punchy over Common Core, used to label us as failures, and not raise fist one over this?

It's good to see the possibility this awful system will be delayed for one more year. As someone who teaches beginning ELLs who will certainly bomb on tests, particularly tests like the NYSESLAT that fail even to measure what I teach, I see it as a one year reprieve from being fired for the crime of doing my job. This system will cause teachers to teach to the test as a fundamental survival technique. As per Campbell's Law, as per history, it will inspire cheating.

As per common sense, it will do nothing to address the factors that contribute to low test scores, which are exclusively economic. But with New York State manipulating test scores to prove whatever they wish proven, along with Governor Cuomo's well-documented desire to fire more unionized teachers, things are looking particularly dismal for us this week.

Why the Budget Agreement Doesn't Suck

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will Cuomo Really Kill this Dog if We Reject His Reformy Nonsense?

At the last Delegate Assembly, UFT President Michael Mulgrew told us we were going to focus only on school funding. Capital NY suggested this was because this particular battle appeared to be one we would win. Indeed, Cuomo's speech suggests he will increase funding somewhat regardless of what will happen, but will increase it more if we wholeheartedly embrace his counterproductive corporate crap.

However, neither of his approaches offers NY State children more than a fraction of the billions they're owed as a result of the CFE lawsuit. Nothing short of what's mandated by the CFE lawsuit should be acceptable to NY parents or unions. It's laudable that Mulgrew and Revive NYSUT are fighting for funding, and they should certainly continue.

It's further to leadership's credit that they may be on the verge of initiating something beyond the Twitter campaign (the one in which UFT President Michael Mulgrew, who urged us on, has yet to participate). There will be some sort of boots on the ground action, I'm told. I will participate, and I will urge others to do so as well.

But asking for funding is not enough. We need to take a stand against junk science. I understand Mulgrew's position, that if we oppose evaluation proposals, it will appear we oppose evaluation proposals. This notwithstanding, every teacher I know opposes the evaluation proposals. Every teacher I know opposes being judged by test scores. AFT President Randi Weingarten says, "VAM is a sham." And Revive NYSUT ran all over the state condemning the current APPR as a creation of former President Richard Iannuzzi (though Mike Mulgrew was also a party to it).

It's time now for leadership to reflect the view of the members, rather than pretending things work the other way round. We didn't want 20% of our evaluation to be based on junk science, and we most certainly do not want that percentage going up to 50, or even 40. It's our job to educate the public to the fact that our jobs do not, in fact, entail merely raising test scores. It's our job to educate the public to the fact that teachers tend to influence test scores by a factor of 1-14%.

In fact, it's our job to tell the public that David Coleman's Common Core mantra, that no one gives a crap how our kids feel, is insane. If I didn't give a crap how kids felt I wouldn't wake up ridiculously early to go out and teach them. I'd have retired the first moment I could. In fact, anyone who doesn't give a crap how kids feel ought not to be a teacher, let alone the architect of national learning standards.

Other union leaders endorse opting out and are even refusing to administer Common Core tests. This, to me, is more inspiring than offering to punch corporate reform opponents in the face. It's time for us to articulate a clear agenda that reflects what members demand, rather than obsessing over what gets leadership their seat at the table.

Let's build our own table. No negotiating with terrorists.

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.