UFT Democracy

I was pretty surprised to read this on the ICE-UFT Blog yesterday. A lot of us have issues with what the UFT determines to be democracy. For example, at a recent DA, a motion to have rank and file vote on any new evaluation system was denied. This, ostensibly, was to preserve the power of the DA. Actually, in a democracy, ultimate power belongs with the people, in this case, the rank and file.

When we vote in UFT elections, all branches vote for all reps. This is because, a few decades ago, the uppity high school teachers had the temerity to vote for a New Action VP (back before New Action became an arm of Unity). To preclude this from happening again, rules were changed. Thus, elementary teachers, who vote overwhelmingly for Unity, now help high school teachers choose their VP. This is akin to having Texas and Oklahoma help New York select their US Senate reps.

In any case, I'm amazed at the contents of this. Most amazing is that this District Rep put this into writing. He apologized for people at his meeting speaking their minds. Apparently, his meetings are not for that purpose. His meetings exist so that he can tell chapter leaders what to tell their constituents. According to him, they were elected as chapter leaders so they could transport messages from UFT leadership to their members. And UFT leadership, according to him, know what's best and cannot ever be criticized.

Now, here's the thing. I'm certain transmitting messages from leadership to membership can be a useful service. Of course, if that's all chapter leaders do, the UFT could simply email whatever it wanted members to hear directly and eliminate the middleman. In fact, the UFT has a huge email list and often does just that.

A chapter leader represents not UFT leadership, but rather the membership of his or her school. It behooves a chapter leader to be well-informed, and by that I do not mean asking leadership what to think and then thinking it. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of UFT chapter leaders belong to the Unity Caucus. To join, you must agree to disagree with the caucus only within the caucus, and to publicly support any and all caucus/ UFT positions.

To wit, a Unity chapter leader must support mayoral control, value-added evaluation, the 2005 Contract, and the process of sending ATR teachers school to school, week to week. A Unity chapter leader must support the Open Market as a superior system to that in which there were no ATR teachers, because there are more transfers under this system than there were under the old one.

To me, someone like that is not a leader, but a follower. It's very sad that the UFT chooses to let only those who will follow orders lockstep into leadership positions. It's weakened us to have leaders like that. A chapter leader would earn my vote by representing my interests, even if they conflicted with those of UFT leadership.

I'd put my faith in a chapter leader who was independent and thoughtful, precisely someone like James Eterno, who wrote the piece to which I linked. The District Rep who wrote this?  His notion of democracy very much resembles that of Mayor Bloomberg, who gets 8 of 13 votes on the PEP. That means that no one can ever win a vote against Mayor Bloomberg.

However, on the UFT Executive Board, and in UFT leadership, no one even gets a vote against Unity/ New Action. There are precisely zero opposition reps in the UFT. This DR has a lot of gall speaking out against duly elected chapter leaders. Does he find even that vestige of democracy so inconvenient he must rail against it?

In fact it's the rank and file members in a school who determine which chapter leaders they want, and why they want them. It behooves our leadership not only to keep it that way, but also to expand real democracy.

They seem to like it in Chicago!

If Diane Ravitch Were UFT, She Wouldn't Be at AFT Convention

This week we've been examining precisely what it takes to represent the UFT at a national or state convention. The prime requirement, of course, is to be an invited member of the elite Unity Caucus, and to do that you must agree to support all union positions in public. Ravitch, though I like her very much, fails to meet the standard. Here's why.

1. She publicly opposes mayoral control. UFT supports it, and this alone would disqualify her. It's a long tradition to expel Unity members for failure to conform. In fact, Albert Shanker used to expel people for opposing the Vietnam War. Mayoral control is what brought us the rubber-stamp PEP, and I've seen high-ranking UFT officials get just as frustrated with them as most of us are. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and placing all that power in the hands of an elitist billionaire, let alone anyone at all, was a huge error. We ought to stop pretending otherwise.

2. Ravitch vehemently opposes VAM, and has publicly labeled it for the junk science it is. She does not support using it for teacher evaluations, not at any percentage. Standard union argument is that principal's judgment can be flawed, and therefore other measures are needed. I cannot really argue that point, nor the one that there are plenty of crazy principals out there, but adding random nonsense to the mix hardly helps. In fact, if you have a small-minded principal, it's likely this person could work to see your value-added scores scour the depths of whatever underworld whatever remains of the soul of Joel Klein has been relegated to.

3. Ravitch fails to support Common Core, contending it should be tested before it's put into effect. This makes perfect sense to me. In fact, with the AFT circulating a petition against excessive testing, before supporting it, wouldn't it be a good idea for us to find out precisely how much testing it will entail? The spectre of nine tests a year, to me, hardly bodes well. I'm upset by Common Core in that it does not differentiate between ELA for American-born kids and ESL for my students. To me, that's patently idiotic. Issues like these ought to be addressed before we throw our support to any program.

4. Ravitch is highly critical of union-endorsed President Barack Obama, going so far as to say he's given GW Bush a third term in education. UFT members won't be talking any of that when Vice President Joe Biden addresses the crowd in Detroit. When Obama's people applaud entire teaching staffs being fired, when Arne Duncan states Katrina was the best thing to happen to NOLA education, Obama says nothing, but Ravitch is not impressed.

I could go on, but you get the point. I commend the AFT for selecting Ravitch this year. She's a much better choice than Bill Gates.

On the other hand, it's not particularly admirable that UFT leadership has excluded absolutely every New York City teacher who publicly supports her ideas.

A Strong Union Embraces Diversity

UFT has just scored a victory against Mayor4Life, conclusively establishing that even those as rich as Bloomberg need to listen to voices other than those in their heads. CTU has just provided proof that a determined and cohesive union can negotiate a win-win. However, there's work ahead on both fronts. In NY, it's likely an embittered mayor will move toward more traditional school closings, because he needs what he wants, when he wants, how he wants. And Chicago, just like NY, still has not agreed upon a new contract.

A time like this is a time for us to stand firm, and stand together. Yet in Detroit, UFT will be represented only by leadership-selected members who have signed an oath to support what they're told to support. This includes mayoral control, the prime source of city school closings, and also value added methodology, now embedded in NY State law. Value-added has been vigorously opposed by a bold group of New York State principals, and also by prominent education historian Diane Ravitch. It's largely regarded as junk science, and that it can cause teachers to be denied tenure, or even be fired for no good reason.

Yet this weekend, at the AFT convention, there will be not one single solitary vocal critic of VAM from the UFT. Can it really be that 100% of UFT members support junk science? Again, it's because every UFT rep has promised to support what leadership supports, good, bad, or indifferent. Regrettably, that's not the sort of thing that strengthens us. Rather, it encourages and increases the sort of cynicism that keeps all too few of our members from active participation. There's a good reason why fully three quarters of UFT members don't even bother to vote in union elections.

As for VAM, the debate within UFT is not whether or not we will be using VAM, but whether it will entail 20%, 40%, or indeed 100% of the final evaluation. That's an interesting conversation, but it ought not to be the one and only one.

As I've repeatedly suggested, the optimal percentage of junk science in any evaluation should be zero, and it's unfortunate this merited no previous discussion, and that there will be no UFT member in Detroit to point that out. I'm very confident large numbers of our members, given enough info (the kind largely unavailable in MSM), would strongly agree. There are not a whole lot of teachers I know who strongly advocate for junk science--I can't think of a single one, in fact. Yet dissenting voices, in a group that applauded for Bill Gates, will get no consideration whatsoever.

UFT leaders need not agree with us. They need not adopt our positions. But again, they ought to entertain them, reason with us,  rather than simply shut us out altogether. Winning hands, like the one just blooming in Chicago, are not achieved by erecting brick walls across the paths of passionate and active unionists.

To be continued...

To Be an Activist

If you wish to join Unity Caucus, and participate in leadership decisions, you have to agree to support all Unity/ UFT decisions. One of those decisions, in 2002 and again in 2009, was to support mayoral control. Many of us are painfully aware of what that entails--a fake school board called the PEP that rubber stamps absolutely anything our billionaire mayor desires.

In 2002 many members had reservations about giving all that power to any one person. I know I did. Giuliani had always tried to get that sort of control, but he was always pursuing insane lawsuits, like the one to bring him mistress into the home he shared with his wife and young children, and no one took him seriously. Bloomberg, much smarter than his predecessor, made it happen.

By 2009, it was pretty clear what Bloomberg's notion of democracy entailed, given he'd dismissed a couple of members who dared to contemplate voting against him. And, of course, the PEP has approved every school closing, ignoring the cries of teachers, parents, students, community leaders, and absolutely everyone but Michael Bloomberg.

UFT asked for some modifications, but got nothing that substantively eroded what is effectively mayoral dictatorship. However, feel free to correct me if I've missed anything.

Regardless, virtually no Unity member in New York City was able to publicly speak against mayoral control, because that violated the official leadership position. Then, in 2010, they were sent to Seattle to applaud for Bill Gates. While no UFT members were permitted to oppose Gates, some AFT locals apparently had people who did, and those who were vocal in opposition were ridiculed by the faithful as they walked out.

Whatever margin Unity won by, there is a large percentage of UFT teachers who oppose what Gates has done to education. Even if it were solely the 9% that opposed Unity/ New Action, that 9% ought to have a place in leadership. I'd suggest, though, that many more teachers oppose Gates than represented in the percentage that voted for opposition.

It's a far cry from democracy to deny those teachers a voice. We ought not to run our union the way Michael Bloomberg runs his PEP. In fact, by granting zero voice, zero votes, to anyone but leadership-invited caucus members, we're doing worse--at least Bloomberg grants five representative votes to face his insurmountable eight.

To be continued...

How Far Is Wisconsin?

The spectacle of the anti-union, anti-middle class governor of Wisconsin openly trying to break public unions is something I'd never expected to see, even after years of Fox News brainwashing the American public with pro-corporate nonsense. Yet there it is. Walker got his ducks in a row by precluding negotiations with the lame-duck session that preceded him. His first instinct was not to push this legislation, but rather to simply decertify unions. Nonetheless, with the legislation he proposes, unions would have so little power they'd be irrelevant.

Oddly enough, union leaders have already accepted the notions of increased contributions to pensions and health care benefits, claiming they just want to preserve their right to collectively bargain. Of course, giving into these demands before any bargaining process may have rendered collective bargaining, in this instance, a moot point. Nonetheless, Governor Walker says there will be no compromise, and is busing in thousands of idiots from the Tea Party to bolster his principled position--that he can do whatever the hell he feels like and working people can go screw themselves.

One thing you don't read about very much is that Walker issued a tax break that pretty much equals the savings he's trying to recoup on the backs of state workers. It's kind of a Robin Hood thing, except the money goes to Walmart instead of the poor, and takes from the middle class instead of the rich. Another thing not often mentioned is that, under Walker's bill, unions would have to be recertified on an annual basis. Think about Walmart, and how it's managed to avoid union all these years. It closed a store in Canada rather than admit union.  When meat-cutters in a Texas Walmart decided to unionize, it cut meat cutting from the entire chain. It took nine years before Walmart even discussed this. Can you imagine having to face a Walmart-style intimidation campaign on an annual basis?

And this, clearly, is the model Walker likes. Unfortunately, President Barack Obama failed to keep his campaign promise to pass the Employee Free Choice Act. Such an act would have made it far more difficult for sleazeballs like Walker and the charter-loving Walmart family to continue thwarting the efforts of working people. Having waited past the point when the House turned GOP, the legislation is pretty much dead in the water.

But we need to keep an eye on Wisconsin. This is clearly the GOP template for the rest of the country, and while a corporatist slimeball like Andrew Cuomo won't yet openly embrace such tactics, he's also declined to continue a popular millionaire tax that could substantially ease our budget gap, preferring to cut schools and medical aid to the poor. He's also stated very clearly he plans to go after unions.

Could it happen here? Not right now. But Wisconsin is a flash point, a place where collective bargaining for public unions originated. Half a century later, look how things have changed. While Cuomo doesn't yet openly embrace Walker-style tactics, and NY's legislature wouldn't likely support him right now, his rhetoric is not all that foreign from Walker's.

There's an apocryphal Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times."

I'm afraid the interesting times are unfolding right before us. We've done our part to enable them by voting for Bloomberg, voting for Cuomo, and voting for the 2005 UFT Contract. UFT leadership has helped by endorsing numerous deals not in our interest.

High time we all wised up. Otherwise we may as well all get jobs at Walmart.

What Your COPE Dollars Buy

We all know, as teachers, that we have to be careful what we say and how we speak to children. The register we use amongst ourselves may not be acceptable when someone reports us as having used it with kids. That's hard for someone like me, whose tendency is brain to mouth unedited, but I've learned. You really have to be careful who your audience is.

When you're a public figure, you have to be even more careful. Look how hubris sank Eliot Spitzer and Gary Hart. Look how it mired Bill Clinton in unproductive nonsense for years.

That's why, when I read something like this, I'm amazed how freely people disregard history. Paul Egan may go where he pleases and eat what he likes, but it behooves him to know he represents the UFT everywhere he goes.  Making scenes in restaurants and refusing to pay $1800 checks is not precisely good PR, and suits only second-tier celebs like Paris Hilton. A political director should know better than to draw such attention,  whether or not it involves portion sizes.

Such nonsense leads to boneheaded editorials like this one, stereotyping New York teachers as a bunch of self-indulgent louts. We all do stupid things sometimes. But a political leader must display restraint and diplomacy in public. Though what Egan did really reflects on him alone, we don't need this sort of publicity. He should know better. I'm a lowly teacher, and I know better.

This notwithstanding, I pay into COPE. I pay half what they ask, because while the UFT has supported great causes (like the election of Tony Avella), it's also supported the re-election of George Pataki (who vetoed improvements to the Taylor Law) and Serphin Maltese (who was responsible for breaking two Catholic school unions).

I had no idea I was buying quail dinners, satisfactory or otherwise, for Paul Egan, who earns 50% more salary than any working teacher. This is not the sort of thing that makes me want to pay what the UFT asks; rather, it makes me want to withhold support altogether.

I won't do so now, but it's high time for Mr. Egan to focus on his job and start eating more meals at home. He can learn to cook if necessary. Like most working teachers, I don't give a golly goshdarn about what sort of service people receive at $1800 dinners (even though we're granted the dubious honor of picking up the tab).

What I'd like to see from Mr. Egan is the kind of self-control demanded of working teachers every day. It's time to halt the sideshow, immediately, decisively, and forever. If he feels like a lavish meal, let him reach into his own pocket.

That's what I do.  That's what 80,000 working teachers do.

But mostly we don't, and Mr. Egan ought to bear that in mind as well.

Say Anything

It's been a trying week for UFT leadership, having just fired writer Jim Callaghan, who refused to go quietly into that good night. Callaghan claims to have been fired for, of all things, his efforts to unionize.  Naturally, brass needs to paint a more favorable portrait.

Yesterday, UFT mouthpiece Peter Goodman was waxing poetic over at Gotham Schools about the democracy that flourishes in the UFT.  As usual, no mention was made of the controlling Unity Caucus.  Said Goodman:

The give and take, the variety of opinions within the union is healthy, the thousand delegates, selected by members in each and every school gather monthly, debate is wide ranging, and usually strongly supportive of Weingarten, and now Mulgrew.

The latter is true, of course, because the overwhelming majority of those present belong to Unity and have surrendered their right to publicly dissent.  In addition, there are a few from the faux-opposition New Action, who are permitted superficial disagreement as long as they do not oppose the Unity presidential candidate (imperiling their patronage gigs).  Then there is a ragtag, disorganized bunch of individuals that truly disagree.  This group is routinely booed and ridiculed by both Unity and New Action.

Goodman contended those at the DA  "may or may chose to belong to a political party within the union."  I responded:

As you well know, Unity is not a choice. It is an invitation-only caucus that requires its members to sign an oath not to contradict it in public.

Goodman called that "almost laughable," and went on to claim,

"I’ve never signed an “oath”....  

This was remarkable.  The defining characteristic of Unity Caucus is its non-negotiable demand that its members represent the Caucus rather than the membership.  Most UFT members are unaware of its existence.  Personally, I never heard of it before I started blogging about five years ago.  That's the way it's supposed to be, of course.  Very few teachers would vote for a chapter leaders they knew followed orders from up high rather than promoting the interests of rank and file--and make no mistake, the 2005 contract, relentlessly promoted by Unity, was not in the interests of rank and file.  I responded to Goodman:

Verbatim from the Unity application, members agree:


To express criticism of caucus policies within the Caucus;
To support the decisions of Caucus / Union leadership in public or Union forums;

Are you saying you never signed that agreement?

I'm still waiting for Goodman to respond.  I suppose the best approach is to sit while I wait.

In the UFT hierarchy, chapter leaders are routinely bought off.  They sign the Unity oath and are kept in line with free trips to conventions, where they dutifully genuflect before the likes of Bill Gates.  Many live in hope of getting a union job just like Peter Goodman did.  Then they can drop most or all of that inconvenient teaching, earn a second pension, make considerably more than teachers, and get even more free trips and perks.

When UFT chapter leaders sign the Unity application, they agree to be "activists."  In reality, they agree to do whatever they're told without question.

Those who agree are not leaders, but followers.  This in itself is not necessarily bad.  But lately, they're following the dictates of demagogues like Bill Gates and the Wal-Mart family, to the detriment of teachers and working Americans everywhere.

Who's Next?

By now, you're aware that Michelle Rhee fired about 6% of the teachers in DC.  In some cases, she did this because teachers failed to get their credentials, but in most it's because of their students' test scores.  Supposedly, there's a 22-point system scrupulously followed, but who really knows what Rhee is doing over there?  AFT President Randi Weingarten cries outrage, as this is not supposed to happen.  But what exactly is supposed to happen when you erode tenure and allow demagogues to judge teachers by test scores?

When you have contracts that judge teachers by test scores, and allow their firings based on test scores, isn't it logical to expect teachers will be fired based on test scores?   And if, as in the case of DC, you get no input into how the scores will be used, why do you agree to let them be used at all?  Is it wise to trust in the good graces of a Michelle Rhee?  Those are questions DC teachers should be asking union President George Parker, and it's tough to imagine he has satisfactory answers.  Perhaps that's why Parker, whose term has expired, has not permitted an election to take place.

Honestly, how could you vote for a person who's subjected you to job loss based on factors largely beyond your control?  Could Parker have anticipated that Rhee would use tests not designed to assess teachers and fire teachers on such a ridiculous basis?  Perhaps not.  But I certainly could have. 

Now it's entirely possible that Joel Klein is too principled to mess with people's livelihoods on such a frivolous basis.  But given that he specifically requested the ability to dismiss teachers on an "arbitrary and capricious" basis, I doubt it.  Supposedly, Mulgrew will have to negotiate how "value-added" is used to assess teachers.  But since there is no valid way to use it, how will he do that fairly?

Will he decline to do it at all?  One would hope, but wouldn't that make it look like we were anti-"reform?"  What would Bill Gates have to say about that?  More likely they'll work something out, and after two years of bad ratings, tenured teachers will be dismissed after 60 days.

But it's not all bad news.  On the brighter side, UFT employees at 52 Broadway will not be judged by test scores.  No matter how many city teachers are fired, they will continue doing whatever it is they do over there.

Bill Gates: Let Retired Teachers Eat Cat Food

Our good pal Bill Gates went to Seattle and told thousands of AFT delegates how much he valued teachers.  Being at a free convention, they applauded wildly.  After all, it cost more than a year's individual teacher dues to send a single Unity member there, and it would be kind of rude not to show their appreciation.  So cognizant of the awesome responsibility of spending our dues money were they, they didn't hesitate to sing, "Na, na, na, na, na, na" to those who failed to appreciate the brilliance and wisdom of the great Gates (whose influence is so vast and far-reaching that even now it's causing the schools of those very delegates to close).

Yet days later, to show how much he appreciates teachers, Bill Gates is telling the Wall Street Journal we're spending way too much on their retirement.  It's interesting to see someone with Gates' money complaining that elderly teachers are excessively living it up.  More interesting still is that he gets Randi Weingarten to publicly announce how smart she is to have dialogue with Gates, and he can't even wait a full week before turning around and throwing a pie in her face.

Fortunately, Ms. Weingarten likes pie.  She's determined to build a legacy as a new kind of labor leader.  She's not some cigar-chomping figure sitting in an office somewhere.  You don't see her out there demanding more money for her members.  Not only does she not demand better working conditions or less time at work, she often seeks precisely the opposite.  That's why she garners praise from folks like Rod "The NEA is a terrorist organization" Paige and Tim "Mutual benefits via firing ATR teachers" Daly.  That's why she makes jokes at her members' expense and casually chuckles over them with Bill Gates in front of thousands of teachers, and who knows how many YouTube viewers.

Make no mistake, an attack on teacher pensions is right in line with who Gates is and what he wants.  If you think America will be a better place by degrading the profession of teaching, if you want to be an at-will employee, if you think Americans don't need decent pensions (which few of us still have nowadays), if you think billionaires should dictate our terms of employment, then Bill Gates and Randi Weingarten are a match made in heaven.

After all, rich people simply know things we don't.   That's why they have so much money, and I suppose that's why Randi Weingarten wants to let them do to us exactly what they did to the American economy.

Only once that happens, who's gonna bail them out next time?  Certainly not retired teachers.  They'll be too busy collecting deposit bottles in stolen shopping carts.

UFT Listens to Gates, Gives Up

Like many teachers, parents, and community members, I was elated when the UFT prevailed in its lawsuit against Joel Klein's Death Star, apparently saving 19 schools from oblivion, and hundreds of teachers from the scrap heap that is the Absent Teacher reserve.  Finally, I thought, someone is standing up to the criminals who run public hearings and ignore absolutely every word the public says.

In the months that followed, it became clear that Bloomberg was going to simply ignore the order, sending only 21 students as the 9th grade class to Beach Channel and 23 to Jamaica.  Furthermore, they were going full speed ahead with their plans to open new schools in the buildings slated for closure, judicial order or no.  Bloomberg stated his contempt for the law when the judge's decision was affirmed, as he knows what's best and laws largely don't apply to him.  In fact, to grab a third term, he simply had the law changed.

It was unclear whether or not Bloomberg had the right to open the new schools, but it seemed he did not, as they were designed to replace schools illegally slated for closure.  After all, the UFT could always file another lawsuit blocking their openings.  But then the UFT aristocracy went with their minions to Seattle, applauded Bill Gates, and heaped juvenile abuse on those had issues with his anti-union, anti-labor, anti-teacher pro-KIPP agenda.

Yesterday we learned that the UFT decided to fall down before it was pushed, agreeing that 9 of 16 of Joel Klein's new schools could "colocate" inside the buildings it "saved."  We also learned the DoE would provide no additional resources for the targeted schools, as the UFT apparently did not see this matter as worthy of including in the negotiation.  This does not bode well for the schools slated for closure, like Beach Channel and Jamaica, which will both house new schools next year.   In fact, it's entirely possible Klein and company will abide by the letter of the law next year, while still ignoring community sentiment, and close all the schools it wants to next year.

It's discouraging to watch the union so eagerly snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  But they appear to be learning important lessons from Bill Gates--to do whatever the hell he wants and ignore the interests of teachers, parents, students, and communities.

I Won't Do It To Ya, I'll Do It With Ya!

That's what President Barack Obama told the NEA when he was a candidate.  Everyone knew Obama supported charter schools.  No one knew he would insist that states drop charter caps. No one expected he'd give his blessing to firing an entire high school staff based on test scores, or that he'd end up largely a frontman for Bill Gates and the Wal-Mart family.

The NEA, last week, voted no confidence in the President.  They know he lied to them, and it's perfectly reasonable to lose faith in purveyors of lies.  The AFT, on the other hand, invited Gates to the convention and offered him several standing ovations.

In fact,  we know very well what Bill Gates has done.  We know that he started the small school movement, and that dozens of city schools have been closed to make way for them.  We know that the new schools were stocked with kids who didn't include the ones who'd enabled the scores that set the stage for said closings.

Also, we know that when Gates himself abandoned the small school notion, we were still stuck with it.  The fact that ideas don't work means nothing to Joel Klein, and as small schools fail, despite their unfair advantages, he closes them and replaces them with even newer ones.  From that, a sensible person can infer we will be stuck with his current and future bad ideas too, as Gates drops seed money for whatever else strikes his fancy and we're left footing the bill to continue whatever idiocy suited him before he came to his senses, however briefly.

The watchword here is accountability, and it's significant that neither Joel Klein nor Michael Bloomberg is accountable for anything whatsoever.  Everything, and I mean everything, is dumped upon the laps of unionized teachers.

A theme of Gates' that seemed to resonate with the crowd was that cooperation of teachers was paramount for "reforms" to work.  That's ironic, considering that there's no evidence whatsoever that any "reforms" have worked at all.  The "reform"of the moment is value-added, or holding teachers responsible for test scores.  After all, under the new paradigm, swallowed hook, line and sinker by Randi Weingarten and Michael Mulgrew, neither Joel Klein nor Bill Gates nor parents nor society nor kids themselves are responsible for anything whatsoever.  

Here's the thing, though--Bill Gates does not enlist the cooperation of public school teachers.  He has no respect for them whatsoever, and invidiously compares them to KIPP teachers with no basis in fact.  And cooperation of teachers, to him, entails gaining concessions from leaders who don't bother to consult with rank and file.

UFT President Michael Mulgrew told the Delegate Assembly in September it was vital we cooperate with Bill Gates to find ways to measure teacher effectiveness.  Yet before the results of that program were even available he negotiated a "value-added" method of evaluating teachers in NY State with no input whatsoever for members.  There is no research whatsoever to suggest this method has any validity.    The UFT rationalizes this by saying only 40% of teacher rating will entail value added.  They state it's 50% in Colorado (thanks to Randi Weingarten, which they conveniently omit).

Unlike the NEA, the AFT has learned nothing from the lies of Barack Obama.

Or worse, they're cynically selling us out for no good reason at all.  Either way, it's beyond the pale, and these leaders are not working in the interests of working teachers.  Nor are the delegates, who seem to applaud on command as teachers face the most serious threats to the profession I've seen in a quarter-century on the job.

Any New York City delegate who applauded Bill Gates most certainly does not represent rank and file.   How these people sleep at night after having cheered the AFT sellout to the most destructive force in pubic education today simply boggles my mind.

We're Havin' a Party

In Seattle today, Unity members are reaping what they've sown.  A free trip to Seattle, and a few days in a hotel.

Ostensibly, they're representing the United Federation of Teachers.  That would be you and me. But really, they're representing the Unity Caucus.  That's a special fraternity, open by invitation only.  That's not you and me.  That's whoever they say it is.

In fact, every one of them has signed an oath to express disagreement with the Caucus only within the Caucus.  Every one of them has pledged to support Caucus decisions, however they may feel about them,  outside of the Caucus. 

Albert Shanker threw people out of Unity Caucus for opposing the Vietnam War.  More recently, I heard of a chapter leader expelled from the caucus for inviting a speaker to a meeting--a speaker of which the Caucus did not approve.  So much for freedom of opinion.  One fewer person in Seattle, I suppose.

Nonetheless, Unity doesn't discriminate.  No matter how big, no matter how small your school may be, as long as you've signed an oath to support whatever they've told you to support, you get to go there, stand up for whatever they've told you to stand up for, and let the world know you believe whatever they've told you to believe.  It doesn't matter if your school has ten teachers or a thousand teachers--your chapter leader is there in Seattle supporting whatever the Unity Caucus says needs supporting.

This week they're supporting a forum for uber-"reformer" Bill Gates.  Here's the man who started the small-schools movement, the one that's resulted in dozens of past, present and future school closings in New York City.  Maybe your school is next,  or maybe my school, or maybe your kid's school.  Though Bill doesn't support small schools anymore, having learned they aren't the magic bullet, he's off supporting other magic bullets like charter schools.  And Joel Klein supports the small schools regardless.  I haven't heard Bill Gates repudiate Klein's use of them, and I don't suppose the AFT will hear him do so either.

Are there problems in your school?  Is it on the verge of closing?  Are you going to become an ATR?  Will Bill and his buds, the Wal-Mart family and Eli Broad, put their billions behind having you fired? Is your school overcrowded?  Are there dozens of class size violations?  Do you think the UFT should be worrying about those things?

Well, the Unity Caucus disagrees, and what they say goes.  They're having a party right now so don't bother them with your petty nonsense.

And that's the system 91% of the 30% of teachers who bothered to vote voted for.

It's becoming very clear to me why the other 70% didn't bother.

Ay, Caramba!

Nazis Address Synagogue

Klansman Addresses NAACP Convention

Unlikely headlines.  Nonetheless, I keep reading that Bill Gates is addressing the AFT convention.  It kind of makes me glad I won't be there.  What the heck can Bill Gates, who knows nothing but union-busting, trendy gimmicks, and ungodly alliances with Wal-Mart, tell a bunch of teachers?

Fortunately, he'll largely be addressing those teachers who've openly collaborated with him, so we won't have to worry much about his converting anyone new.  After all, UFT leadership insisted we collaborate with him on a value-added experiment back in September.  Bill placed his surveillance cameras in classrooms all over the city to figure out some sort of rubric for good teaching.  His lies and Big Brother techniques alienated a handful of teachers in my school to the point at which they dropped out, turning down his $1500 payoff.

Then, before this experiment even concluded, before its results were even imposed upon us, UFT leadership made a deal with the state to have value-added used to assess teachers.  They promised us they'd do research.  They promised us they'd negotiate how it was done.  After all, there's no research whatsoever to support the validity of value-added.  I suppose if you're going to do something baseless and stupid, you may as well do it carefully.  Teachers will certainly lose jobs as a result of this, particularly coupled with the rubber-room agreement that makes sure they're dumped quickly and efficiently.

Last week, though, in order to avoid some of the school closings (which, if not for the UFT collaboration on mayoral control, may not have even been a consideration), the UFT agreed that a bunch of schools would begin value-added assessments next year, a full year ahead of the agreement, with no research, no planning, and no specifically negotiated plan.  One might argue, since the entire notion has no validity, that there's no point fretting over a valid model.

Considering all that, why shouldn't the most destructive force in education address his collaborators?  What have we got to lose?  You'd hope that an AFT convention would be a place where they'd discuss a productive future for education, a vision for improving the lot of teachers.

Instead, you've got the Antichrist coming to deliver the Sunday sermon.

Now With Only Half the Crap!

Incredibly, that's pretty much the line UFT central has been using to promote their latest evaluation deal.  Only 20% of your evaluation will be determined by standardized tests, using an unproven and highly questionable technique called "value added."  (Another 20% will be rated using local tests, portfolios, or some other thing.)  This is a good thing, they say, because it could be 50%.  In fact, that's what it is in Colorado, and AFT President Randi Weingarten supported the bill that enabled it.

And that's not all the venerable Ms. Weingarten enabled in Colorado:

Under the legislation, which garnered bipartisan support, teachers would be evaluated every year and students' academic progress would count for half the instructors' overall rating. Elementary- and high-school teachers would need three consecutive years of positive evaluations to earn tenure, which guarantees them an appeals process before they can be fired. 

Educators rated "ineffective" two years in a row would be stripped of tenure protection and revert to probationary status. They could earn back job protection after three straight years of satisfactory evaluations.

UFT teachers already work without tenure protection in the Green Dot charter school, among others.   With an openness to agreements like these, tenure could come to mean little or nothing to public school teachers as well.  The Unity/ New Action coalition that brought us leaders like Ms. Weingarten has now given us President Michael Mulgrew, who opted to negotiate this deal in secret and have the UFT Delegate Assembly rubber-stamp it for him.

The argument I've been hearing, incredibly, is it could have been twice as crappy as it was.  The truth is, while the agreement may indeed contain half the crap, or even less, crap is not on the short list of what today's teachers need most.  I know, because not a single teacher has told me so, and I talk to teachers all the time.

Perhaps union presidents should consider doing the same.

Thanks to Fred Klonsky

From the Folks Who Brought You the 2005 Contract:

I'm still trying to get my head around the agreement the UFT and NYSUT made to re-do the teacher evaluation system.  After having read voices like Diane Ravitch and Aaron Pallas on "value-added" measures of teacher effectiveness, I'm fairly convinced that there is no way to use it effectively.  That's one reason I was wary to see the UFT get into bed with Bill Gates and his "Measures of Effective Teaching" program.

Mulgrew told the DA in September that we needed to participate so as to be part of this discussion, but apparently the discussion is moot since they made the deal without even waiting for the results.   There is a Q and A at uft.org which pretty much lays out the union position.   I was very curious about the teacher input I'd been hearing about.

How much say will teachers have in the new system?
Throughout the process, the role of collective bargaining is maintained, and, in many ways, strengthened. All of the elements comprising the composite score must be developed through state and local negotiations. The agreement states that the new teacher evaluation and improvement system would also be a “significant factor” in employment decisions such as a career ladder to positions such as lead teacher, mentor or coach that could lead to supplemental compensation, promotion into administrative positions, and tenure determination as well as in teacher professional development. But how the evaluations will figure into those decisions must be determined locally through collective bargaining. If no agreement can be reached, the old system will remain in place.

 

It appears the "teacher input" is restricted to those who control the union--the folks who brought us the 05 contract which was the best thing since sliced bread (highly overrated when you consider all those artisan breads you can bring home and cut yourself.)  The best I can see is if we don't reach an agreement, the old arrangement stays in place.  If we do reach an agreement, watch the eraser sales at Staples quadruple as teachers and administrators all over the state scramble to inflate scores.

And, as Mr. A Talk pointed out, the Q and A fails to mention you're terminated 60 days after two unfavorable ratings.

What are you going to do if the teacher who preceded you inflated scores?  How will you explain the massive losses you incur by the woeful liability of your incredible honesty?  How are you going to resist your supervisor imploring you to pass that kid who set off the stink bomb while the principal was observing you?

Hey, I hope I'm wrong.  I really, really do.

But these negotiation techniques are beyond my meager comprehension.  When the mayor refuses to give you the pattern, the one he gave all the other unions, the one he's held you to for decades, you don't give him the end of the rubber room.  You make him pay.

And when the morons who write op-eds attack you, you fight back.  You attack them in the media, even if you've blown your advertising budget with a cute but pointless cartoon. You don't appease them.  Why not?  Because when you do, they say it's not good enough and ask for more.

In fact, they don't appreciate our short-sighted, idiotic, pointless giveaways one bit. 

Nor do I, truth be told.

I Must Be Dreaming

How else could I explain this article, which seems to have appeared in the New York Times?  We are entering into an agreement that makes it easier to fire "sub-par" teachers, and apparently the UFT and NYSUT trust the powers-that-be to determine exactly who fits that category.  The fact that Klein's minions make a career of lying to us and undermining public education does not appear to have played any part in this decision.

The sentence that really made me go back and check again was this one:

The unions — the New York State United Teachers and the United Federation of Teachers, the city’s union — did not gain any clear benefit from the deal, other than shielding themselves from criticism that they were hurting the state’s chances in Race to the Top.

Did I really read that?   Is this what we get weeks after having elected a new President?  He's used his overwhelming mandate to appease an opposition that vilifies us in the press on a never-ending basis?  Is this what they call negotiation?  Does he remember how that worked out for Neville Chamberlain?

Four years ago they pushed the awful backward contract that created the ATR brigade and endless hall patrol.  The contract that halved prep time for high school teachers.  The one that effectively gave us more work for less pay.  When we cried against it, they asked, "What would the tabloids say if we were to reject this contract?"

The answer?  The same thing they say now.  The same thing they always say.  Teachers suck.  Fire teachers.  Throw them out and dump non-union charters in their place.

I had hoped Michael Mulgrew would bring something new to the UFT.  Instead, he's brought us yet another idiotic deal in which we gain nothing, and provide givebacks.  And this time he's managed to provide no raise, not even an illusory time-for-money swap.   Despite this,  he's unilaterally changed the contract with no input whatsoever from rank and file.

And the Bill Gates experiment, the one the UFT went along with--the one that was supposed to give us a voice in how to determine what a good teacher really is?  He didn't even wait for the results before entering into this agreement, a tenure-killer if ever there was one.

After all, the UFT leadership can still collect union dues no matter how many veteran teachers are fired.  Is that all they care about?

I'd very much like to be convinced otherwise.  If anyone can provide any justification whatsoever for this, I'd love to hear it.

GothamSchools Trashes UFT Opposition, Determines 22% Voter Turnout Not "Too Apathetic"

I was kind of amazed to go to GothamSchools yesterday and read " If the population currently teaching in the city’s classrooms starts to stray to opposition groups, or is too apathetic to vote, the union could be in trouble."

First of all, the article itself states only 22 percent of working teachers voted three years ago. Doesn't a 78% lack of participation already indicate apathy?  Or is the accepted standard 79%?  I haven't been to journalism school, but perhaps it's written in some highly regarded textbook somewhere.

Be that as it may, I'm also astounded by the contention that the union could be in trouble if too many working teachers stray to opposition groups.  Despite what Unity sources may have told the Gotham reporter, we too are union, we believe fervently in union and we think the union is already in trouble.   We think many of our troubles began when the UFT/ Unity aristocracy ignored James Eterno's advice and decided to go to PERB in 2005.

Or perhaps GothamSchools simply thinks we are trouble.  Maybe Unity told them we were trouble and they're simply reporting it unattributed.  Hard to say, since they didn't see fit to explain.

This piece could well have been written by the Unity propaganda team, already up to its elbows in cutesy and blatantly unfair manipulation---and this on the eve of the election. ICE/ TJC presidential candidate James Eterno just commented here that today is the very last day to persuade people, and the preposterous contention masquerading as news at Gotham is neither welcome, accurate, nor helpful.
The Unity dynasty, propped up by chapter leaders who've signed away their free will for a couple of trips to conventions, does not much need Gotham's help.

Why don't members vote?  Because they've given up.  Because they think the election is in the bag and it doesn't matter what they do.  The more I read things like that column, the better I understand why they get that feeling.

Perhaps in part two of the Gotham-Unity interview, they'll ask why high school teachers can't select their own VP.   Probably they won't.  In any case, taking the choice away from high school teachers is not without precedent.  The technique of widening the pool to make sure no former slaves got elected by mistake was used with some success after the Civil War.   Doubtless when Unity does it to unpredictable high school teachers, it's pristine and pure democracy.

I look forward to the next installment.  Perhaps we'll hear not only from the Unity folks who signed the loyalty oath, but from New Action folks as well.  We can learn how New Action props up the facade of democracy with fake opposition blatantly and cynically designed to divert folks from troublesome activists who stand up for what they believe, as opposed to what Unity tells them to believe.  Maybe they'll express it some other way.

"We believe it's the responsibility of an opposition to support the status quo candidate so we can get jobs and political positions."  Perhaps they won't say it that way either.

Whatever they say, I can't wait to see what comes next.  I love hearing both sides of an issue, and it's particularly riveting when both sides are spoken out of the same mouth.

UFT Democracy at Work

I've just gotten an email about how Unity changed their NY Teacher ad.  ICE/ TJC was not given the opportunity to do this--so this is unfair treatment and blatant favoritism.

In other news, Diane Ravitch will be speaking at UFT HQ next month.  If you see the leaflet, note that it declares prominently something like "Michael Mulgrew presents Diane Ravitch."  That such a thing comes out during campaign season is no coincidence.  It is blatant electioneering in its not remotely subtle association of Mulgrew with Ravitch.

I've looked at many, many leaflets for the UFT, and cannot remember a single one declaring the UFT President was presenting this party, or that workshop, or anything of the sort.  Perhaps I wasn't observant enough during the last campaign, and they've pulled cute stunts like this before.  In any case, such blatant manipulation is abusive.  Why not simply declare, "Diane Ravitch endorses Michael Mulgrew," whether or not it's true, and be done with it?

And while we're on the subject, I don't recall any flyers proclaiming, "Michael Mulgrew brings you mayoral control."  I don't remember the flyer announcing, "Michael Mulgrew makes you an ATR instead of placing you in a teaching job,"  or "Michael Mulgrew makes new teachers pay 3% of their salaries to Mayor Bloomberg for an extra 17 years."  The fact is, had Michael Mulgrew not supported all those initiatives, he wouldn't be President today.  And Michael Mulgrew, in September, from his supposedly impartial post as chair of the UFT Delegate Assembly, opposed a motion to support the return of seniority transfers.  He said there were more transfers under the current system and that was absolute proof it was better.  Ask any ATR teacher if the new system is better or not. 

 In other news, the UFT just sent a missive to chapter leaders stating that all non-inflammatory campaign literature should be permitted in staff mailboxes.  Unfortunately, the campaign has already begun, and you can read at EdNotes that ICE/TJC has already been denied access and forced to waste time revisiting schools.  While it's true folks at the UFT will say this is not acceptable to the offending Unity CLs, why, after decades of such abuses, did they not simply let them know in advance?  Wouldn't that be a simple fix to the problem?  What is the consequence for such abuse, other than hundreds of UFT members being unable to see the other side of the issue?


Those of you who watched the cartoon UFT ad may have wondered what the heck that was all about.  While schools are being closed, why was a cute little cartoon teacher jiggling it as a buzzword?  Weren't real UFT teachers facing, at best, exile into the ATR brigade? In these times, I don't see ATR teachers doing a whole lot of cute cartoon laughing.

The most egregious of these was a few cycles back, when a teacher sat at a desk, bemoaning, "It just isn't fair."  This was certainly not winning any points with the public at large, and was perhaps supposed to ring a bell with frustrated UFT teachers.  I'm not particularly sure why anyone would think the argument, "It's not fair," would win favor from teachers who heard it all the time.

Is there anyone out there who  believes it's a coincidence the UFT invariably buys prime TV time right whenever there's an impending union election?  Inquiring minds want to know.

Was It Worth It, and Did We Even Get It?

 by special guest blogger Michael Fiorillo


In recent years UFT members have repeatedly been told how good we have it, how effective the union has been, and how generous the city has been with us. The Mayor, the Chancellor and the UFT /Unity leadership rarely lose an opportunity to remind us how many resources  have been directed to the schools under mayoral control.  In fact, when asked why the union agreed to mayoral control of the schools in 2002, both Randi Weingarten and Michael Mulgrew  say that it was done to bring more funding. In particular, they never miss an opportunity to tell us how we’ve been showered with money. In the September 6^th, 2007 edition of the New York Teacher, Randi Weingarten wrote in regard to the recently agreed-to contract, “These raises will bring the  total base salary increase since 2002 to at least 43 percent.”

That’s the phrase we keep hearing over and over from the Mayor , the Chancellor,  the UFT/Unity leadership and their official stenographers in the mainstream media : 43% since 2002!

Leaving aside  the  strong hint of extortion that  hovers  behind this (“Give me dictatorial control or we’ll continue to  starve the schools you work in or give you a new contract”), are these numbers even true?

In fact, the mighty 43%  is a fiction that serves the propaganda interests of both the Bloomberg/Klein regime and the UFT /Unity leadership. Here’s why it’s false:

-       Tweed and the Unity leadership both date the start of our raises with the 2002  contract. While technically true, they conveniently ignore the fact that teachers were working without a contract for the previous two years, and had not received a raise since 1999. Thus, our increases should be computed over an eleven, not eight, year period.  This effectively reduces the percentage.

-       Additionally, part of those increases was paid for with additional time, which      

makes it an exchange of time for money, not a bona fide raise. A pay

raise is more money for the same amount of work (unless, of course, you work at City Hall, Tweed or 52 Broadway). Approximately eight percent

of the so-called 43% was a time-for-money swap: thirty minutes

added to the length of the school day, and the two days before Labor Day (one of

which has been pushed to the end of the school year, the other paid for with a

reduction in the interest paid by the TDA Guaranteed plan).

-       According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics , the Consumer Price Index for

The NY Metropolitan Area between 2000 and 2010  showed a decline in purchasing power of 25%. . Also keep in mind that the CPI understates inflation by leaving out food and energy costs.

So, our increases should be measured over eleven, not eight , years, should account for the extra time we are working, as well as the effects of inflation.  An honest accounting would show  real average increases of 3.6% (rounded up) instead to of the officially touted 5.4%.

Now, while that 3.6% average gain is far better than most people have seen in this era of attacks on wages and living standards, keep in mind what else we’ve given up and been subjected to: loss of seniority transfers and the emergence of  the career-destroying ATR pool, loss of the right to grieve letters  in our personnel files, union acceptance of merit pay,  an explosion in the number  of teachers placed in the rubber rooms,  rampant school closings , charter invasions, UFT/Unity passivity in the overriding of term limits,  Randi Weingarten and Michael Mulgrew’s unilateral support for extending  mayoral dictatorship of the schools (in clear contradiction of the recommendations of their very own governance committee), and a de facto endorsement of Bloomberg’s purchasing a third term.

So to answer the question posed by the title: no, it wasn’t worth it, and we didn’t even get it.

The UFT Needs Independent Voices—Part One

UFT politics can be pretty complicated.  Every three years we have an election to select hundreds of representatives.  The 500-pound gorilla in this fight, without a doubt, is the Unity Caucus, which has controlled the UFT for half a century.  Opposition parties have made inroads now and then, but Unity’s been pretty successful at keeping them at bay, particularly since 2003.

It's not just the politics--even the ballot is complicated.  You have your choice of voting for a slate, or choosing hundreds of individual candidates.  One year I chose the latter method, and it took me over an hour to wade through the 1,300 odd names.  I’ve since given up on playing individual favorites.  I’m told that 2,000 teachers were disqualified last year for selecting not only a slate, but also individual candidates.   The ballot could be streamlined by allowing members to vote for categories rather than only individuals, but thus far the UFT has not chosen to do so.

Not many people understand how the UFT is run.  Teachers don’t take much of an active interest either.  In fact, fewer than 25% of working teachers bothered to vote in the last UFT election.  Is it apathy?  Is it forgetfulness?  Or is it that teachers honestly don’t believe their votes will make any difference?

After all, there’s been one-party rule at the UFT, well, forever.  New chapter leaders are offered free trips to conventions and recruited into the invitation-only Unity Caucus. They then sign an application, which specifically states that members will “express criticism of caucus policies within the Caucus” and “support the decisions of Caucus / Union leadership in public or Union forums.”  Essentially, it’s a loyalty oath, and it pretty much predetermines what passes at the UFT Delegate Assembly.

Now don’t get me wrong—I’m a fervent union supporter.  Working people do much better with unions.   I feel much better facing Joel Klein with 80,000 UFT teachers standing beside me, and anyone who wouldn’t is simply nuts. Teachers represent the last bastion of vibrant unionism in the country, and that, of course, is why we’re under constant attack.

But what happens when the ruling caucus makes poor decisions?  Wouldn’t teachers benefit from independent voices standing up for what’s right, even if the ruling caucus were in disagreement?  How does it advance our interests when our Delegate Assembly is an echo chamber in which dissenting voices are grudgingly heard, then shouted down and ridiculed, likely as not from a supposedly impartial chair?  Shouldn’t we have a voice at least in proportion to the percent of votes we win?  And really, doesn’t someone need to speak up when the emperor has no clothes? 

For example, the UFT supported mayoral control at its inception, and again last summer.  Mayoral control has been a disaster for teachers, and we got a rather nasty wakeup call January 26^th, when Mayor Bloomberg used his rubber stamp PEP to close 19 schools, ignoring every speaker and four boroughs.  The fact that every speaker who rose spoke against it was of no importance.  The opposition of four of five boroughs meant nothing. The fact that closings may have been based on false statistics was of no consequence.  How on earth could we have endorsed such a system—essentially a dictatorship?

But that’s what we’re up against nowadays.  Given that, why did we not take a principled stand against Mayor Bloomberg?   Why didn’t we take a real look at Tony Avella, who spoke strongly and decisively against the anti-union, anti-democratic policies of Mayor Michael Bloomberg?

It’s likely because the UFT had a carefully cultivated ally in Bill Thompson, until we went and stabbed him in the back by declining to endorse him (he returned the favor—so much for deeply held values), buying into Mayor Bloomberg’s PR of invincibility.  A UFT source told me before the election that it wasn’t worth their getting involved, as the UFT could only sway perhaps 5% of the electorate.  We now know that if we’d achieved that, Mayor Bloomberg could well have been history.  And it was not so difficult to determine the polls were wrong—had Mayor Bloomberg really been 18 points up he wouldn’t have run such a relentlessly negative campaign.

But we really need to take the union in a new direction—and not the direction of collaboration with this mayor, or selling out to Unity for a few patronage jobs a la New Action.

To be continued...