Facing the Issue? Or More Musical Chairs?

I don't know what to say when I read articles like this one, saying we're told to favor students based on skin color. I must've missed the memo. I've been teaching for 35 years and no one has ever told me any such thing.

At work, I've never heard any such suggestion.

“If I had a poor white male student and I had a middle-class black boy, I would actually put my equitable strategies and interventions into that middle class black boy because over the course of his lifetime he will have less access and less opportunities than that poor white boy,” the consultant, Darnisa Amante, is quoted as saying by those in the room.
“That’s what racial equity is,” Amante explained.

Supposedly, this was said in one room. It's hard for me to go from that to the belief that it's part of some standardized PD that we're all getting. I didn't receive that PD, but I can tell you a million stories about outrageous behavior I've seen. I was once in the lunchroom (before I was chapter leader, and before we had a President who though there were fine people on both sides of nazi rallies) when a teacher stood up and started singing Deutchland Uber Alles. Perhaps I should've called the Post.

Had I done that, though, I'm not sure I'd have suggested it was systemic. It wasn't. It was this one single lunatic, now long retired, being a jerk. Was he a nazi jerk? Hard to say, but he certainly sickened me. He did not sicken a pretty substantial group of my colleagues sufficiently for them to boycott a retirement party at Peter Luger's. I didn't go. He can go to hell, I thought, and for all I know he may be there right now.

I have been to awareness sessions. A young woman stood in front of our room and told us to take steps back if negative things happened to us, and forward if they hadn't. At the end of the exercise, I was second from front of the room. This indicated, I take it, that my level of privilege was second only to my friend a few steps ahead of me. I found it odd because I'd experienced pretty virulent anti-Semitism as a child. That's why I hate racism and bigotry in all its forms (up to and including the big orange one that's ostensibly running our country these days).

I believe that someone said the quote above, and I believe the person who said it was sincere. I don't have the luxury of picking and choosing who I help, or deciding on it based on skin color either. I reach out to every kid I can, and I don't reach out nearly enough. I'm often constrained by a loudmouth or two who command a lot of my attention. If I didn't deal with them, nothing whatsoever could happen in my classroom. If I didn't need to do that, I still wouldn't have time to do enough reaching out.

I'm gonna say again that I don't believe for a moment Richard Carranza is racist, anti-white, or anti-anyone. I don't believe he sent people out to preach the above message. I can tell you that, if I wanted to help the children of New York City, if I wanted more of them to have "equitable strategies and intervention" I wouldn't send people out with a message to help people of this or that skin color, particularly at the expense of some other skin color.

If I wanted students to have more attention, and if I thought that would translate into access and opportunity, of course I'd continue to make sure teachers treated students fairly. I'd continue to educate teachers on the ill effects of racism and bigotry, and I'd work hard to attract people who weren't stupid enough to sing nazi songs in the lunchroom, or practice bigotry in classrooms.

However, if I really cared about students, if I really wanted to give them more attention, I'd do the one thing that Carranza's reps told me they didn't give a crap about at contract negotiations. I'd lower class sizes, even if it meant, you know, making those sensitive rich people pay taxes. I'd build decent school buildings instead of dumping kids into decrepit miserable trailers. I'd stop pretending there's no upper limit on school buildings. There would be a brand new public school across the street from Francis Lewis High School instead of two Marriotts.

We haven't lowered class sizes in over half a century. That hurts students of every disposition, gender and color. Of course, that would cost more than sending out people to lecture teachers on what they're doing wrong. If I were Carranza, I'd fire the guy who said he didn't give a crap about class size. I wouldn't ask about his skin color first, either.

Class Size and the ATR

In New York City, if the last numbers I heard are accurate, we have 800 unassigned teachers. Now those numbers are from last year. They don't include teachers newly unassigned, and they don't include teachers who were temporarily assigned for last year only. The number could be far different in September. Just for the sake of argument, though, let's call it 800.

One single teacher can teach up to 170 students under our current contract. That's too many already, but in a whole lot of schools teachers are teaching even more than that. That's because, under our contract, when there are oversized classes they don't always have to be resolved. There could be a "plan of action" on the part of the city, and if some arbitrator likes it, well, that's the plan.

Here's the thing, though--the only "plan of action" that solves the problem is bringing the class size down. And once we do that, we still have the highest class sizes in the state. We should be focusing on bringing current class sizes down, something we haven't bothered with in over half a century. I'm forever amused by UFT leaders saying we sacrificed money to win class size limits, because if they were even born, they were in diapers when that happened.

Let's get back to here and now. Let's give our 800 ATR members a small break, and say they only have 150 students each. 800 times 150 is 120,000. If ever class in NYC is oversized by two, and we give them to ATR members, we could fix sixty thousand oversized classes. Personally, I doubt we have that many, but if anyone knows better, feel free to correct me.

Now it isn't altogether that simple, of course. ATR teachers are all over five boroughs, and it's highly unlikely that whatever they teach is exactly what students in oversized classes need. Not only that, but if you're an ATR in Queens, the city can't simply send you to Staten Island. We have agreements, and not even Donald Trump can have Whatever He Wants, Whenever He Wants.

So if I'm a Queens ATR, you can't send me to Staten Island. You could, however, ask me if I want to go to Staten Island. The worst I could do is say no. I work in a generally desirable school. Sure, we may get a Boy Wonder supervisor now and then. We might even get a Girl Wonder. But I once watched a principal tell a young teacher to be careful, because there were a hundred people who wanted his job. I'm sure the principal was right. So maybe someone would travel to come to us. I know a lot of people who do, and I'm one of them.

Let's say that doesn't work. Just because I like my school, you don't have to. Maybe my school sucks and I'm delusional. Who knows, really? Wherever you are, kids need you. It's beyond ridiculous that the city won't put you to work because some principal might get his feelings hurt. If you're a Queens teacher, you should go to a Queens school. If that means an actual reduction in class sizes, well, so be it. Why is there a single oversized class when we have an Absent Teacher Reserve? Why are there classes of 34 and 50, the highest in the state, when there is an Absent Teacher Reserve?

Let's put the ATR to work tomorrow, and stop worrying about the scare stories from Families for Excellent Schools, or their well-reported rallies of nine people. Let's give jobs to our teachers, and teachers to our students. This is what you call a win-win. If I'm an ATR and I suck as badly as stories in the tabloids suggest, let some principal slide off his imperial keester and prove it.

Otherwise, let's make sure there are enough classes for teachers to teach and students to attend.

Am I naive? Are there further complications I haven't anticipated? If that's the case, it's on DOE and UFT to sit down and figure out solutions. These are two huge problems that can be used against one another to cancel each other out. If it's not a total solution, it has to be at least a partial one.

If it isn't, I'd like to know why.

UFT Contract--What's Worth Paying For?

I'm going to speak strictly for myself here. There are a lot of things we've called "givebacks." These usually entail giving up rights or privileges for money. Leadership will sometimes say things are better this way, but I'm not generally in agreement. It's never popular to accept less money, but there are some things I think would be worth it.

Number one on my list is class size. I realize this has played part in no giveback. But jeez, it's been 50 years with no change whatsoever. Not only that, but the exceptions are so broad you could drive a fleet of Mac trucks through them, side by side, and still have room for Trump's military parade. It's common sense that the fewer students you have, the more time you can spend helping each and every one. If that's not enough, there is rigorous research that will tell you (duh) that reasonable class sizes help students to learn.

Let's also note that we have the highest class sizes in the state. How do DOE hacks claim to put "children first, always," and stand by that? In some cases, our class sizes are 60% higher than those of other districts. Parents consistently tell the DOE that class sizes are their number one priority. The DOE ignores this and places its collective head in the sand.

We, UFT,  really ought not to be paying for this. As a result of the C4E lawsuit, the city submitted a plan in 2007 to reduce class sizes across the board. It was approved by the state, but the city just ignored it. It's kind of amazing they come to us with Danielson, sit around and tell us just how much we suck, but won't bother spending a dime to make things better. I would forgo part of a raise to push class sizes back.

If the DOE cares about children, it must then care about class sizes. If it doesn't, it's on us to work something out, or beat them into submission. I don't care which. 

It's ridiculous we cannot grieve letters to file for being (a.) inaccurate, (b.) stupid, or (c.) all of the above. If the principal accuses you of throwing a cheeseburger at a student, and you did not, in fact, throw said cheeseburger, that is not grounds to have the letter removed. You have to wait until 3020a to contest it. Meanwhile, all you can do is write a response. If the principal doesn't like it, he can put another letter in your file, because why not?

I used to read a book called Go Dog Go to my daughter when she was very young. In it, there is a pair of dogs that keep meeting. One dog repeatedly asks the other, "Do you like my hat?" The other replies, "No, I do not." If you told a dog you did not like her hat, your principal could place a letter in your file. How could you respond? Could you write an impassioned response explaining what you didn't like about the hat? Could you write how stupid you feel the letter is? Guess what? If the principal doesn't like that letter, you could get yet another letter in your file, because why not?

In fact, there are things you can grieve. You can grieve if the occurrence happened over three months ago. You can grieve if the administrator failed to meet with you before issuing the letter. Here's what happens then--the principal calls "legal," and some DOE employee who likely as not has never bothered to read the Contract will say, "Sure you can do that. You're the principal. You can do whatever you want."

You will then go to Step Two, where another DOE employee will say the thing that happened was not, in fact, an occurrence, and therefore it doesn't matter that three months have passed. Or they may say that the thing that happened did not actually become an occurrence until the principal found out about it. Because guess what? They haven't read the contract either so they do Any Damn Thing They Feel Like.

I'd pay to open further grievance for letters in file. I'd pay to stock legal with people who knew ass from elbow, and hearing officers who knew the same. I'd also pay to place each and every ATR. It's a crime we have even one while a single class is oversized. I understand we can't place ATR members just anywhere, but I'd reach out and offer for every opening.

I know, the city has a surplus, and we shouldn't pay for anything. I think some things are worth paying for. Whatever we got for givebacks is blood money and I'd just as soon give it back.

What do you think?

Exec. Board Takeaway March 12th--The Good, the Bad, and the Worse

I was walking to the meeting with KJ from New Action, and the first thing he said to me was, "I can smell the food." I told him that had never happened before and it seemed like a good sign. Maybe they had finally abandoned those awful sandwiches. We got there and there was all sorts of food. I tried a piece of the eggplant and it was pretty good. We hoped maybe a better fed meeting would be a more productive meeting but alas, that was not to be the case.

Eric Mears started the meeting with a great analysis of Danielson. He picked out parts that suggest teachers should essentially work without compensation if they wished to have good ratings and asked how that was even legal. He pinpointed lines that said we should, if we were truly effective, rat out our brothers and sisters. Thank you, Charlotte Danielson. You're an example for us all.

It was great that Eric was able to plod through all that nonsense to find this stuff. It's kind of remarkable that no one else did before. I often lack the patience to go through tedious crap with a fine tooth comb but I really appreciate that he was able to do it. Let's see what leadership has to say about this. Maybe they'll actually look at whatever he gave them. Stranger things have happened.

We got to hear further about the massive abuse in Adult Ed. I'm really surprised that a sitting cesspool like that has yet to be drained. It seems to be affecting some of the most vulnerable people in the city, and I'm not talking about the teachers. This superintendent appears to be getting away with murder.

ATRs are given an opportunity to vote in UFT elections for a chapter leader who will almost certainly not be their chapter leader come September. It hardly seems worth it, if you ask me. Why should I be worried about a leader who won't be my leader? This distinction, alas, appears to escape leadership, who didn't even wish to discuss it. My understanding is that they contend the ATR to be a temporary aberration. The fact that they enabled it via the 2005 contract, as well as the fact that it's endured for twelve years appears not to register.

When I asked whether we could reach out to help ATRs I was told that this wasn't a question. Howard Schoor said I knew how to write a resolution and indeed I do. I can certainly provide one for the next meeting, but given the dismissiveness of that remark I'm not confident we'll prevail. It's kind of disturbing to think that, at the same time we're urging people to remain in the union, we're telling a whole group of people stuck in a purgatory created by leadership that they don't get a meaningful vote. It wouldn't be my preferred approach.

Amy Arundell spoke about saving two Queens schools, which was a very positive achievement. It is sorely disappointing to see Bill de Blasio, for whom I worked, to whom I contributed, whose first inauguration I attended, closing schools a la Mike Bloomberg.Worse, it appears he fired the PEP member who enabled it, in direct violation of a campaign promise.

Now I rejoice as much as anyone when we avert closings. Sadly, I'm not sure I can agree that this is the result of union power. Union power is certainly desirable, and I'm sure it didn't hurt. But you also have to factor in the dumb luck of getting someone on the fake school board to vote with you. The likelihood of it happening again after this firing hovers around nil. I remember going to many raucous and passionate hearings for Jamaica, and the PEP shut it anyway.

Then we come to a class size resolution. I've been trying to negotiate with Unity for months. I don't recall offhand when Howard Schoor said they'd be happy to meet about this, but the fact is I reached out immediately after that meeting. I got one response saying it was a good idea to do things this way rather than just hitting them with resolutions, but no one answered my repeated requests for a meeting. I followed up, but by last Monday I'd had it.

I sent our resolution in during the school day. Unity, months ago, passed a resolution demanding they get to see any resolution at least an hour before the meeting. Ironically, they themselves need not show us anything and can bring whatever they feel like with no notice whatsoever. In any case, on Monday I learned exactly why they need to do this stuff.

In response to our resolution, Unity put up two guys to respond. The first guy got up and read from a piece of paper about what he wanted stricken from the resolution. I stood up and was going to ask why he wanted to do that. As it happened, Unity put up a second guy with an explanation for their rationale. He explained that asking for any particular number in class size reduction would cost us money in the contract negotiations.

Now it was odd that he said that, because the resolution specifically said that this was unrelated to contract negotiations. Yet he and at least one other speaker said that any specific request for class size reduction would come with a price in negotiations. The Unity Caucus therefore voted to remove all references to specific class size from the class size resolution.

Evidently, since our resolution now made no specific class size demands, there would be no specific price paid during negotiations. In case the implication of that is not obvious. I'll point out that this means we specifically demand nothing whatsoever in the way of lowering class size. Certainly the city won't be charging us for that, and the clause saying we ought not to pay during contract negotiations remains.

I was really struck by what the guy who appeared not to understand why he was asking what he was asking when he added

Resolved that UFT will continue to fight to get C4E monies dispersed to NYC.

Note the implication here. UFT is already doing something, evidently, and will continue doing  whatever that may be. As someone who grieves class sizes twice a year, I'm thoroughly unimpressed with our fight. Thus far, for over half a century and counting, it's yielded precisely nothing that's reduced class sizes. The notion of continuing whatever it is we're doing appeals to me not at all. The notion that UFT has been carrying the torch for lower class sizes is preposterous beyond belief.

That's why I voted against my own resolution, and that's why I'll vote against it again if it comes up in the DA. I know a meaningless, toothless nothing when I see one.

We Don't Need No Stinking Teacher Certification for College Now

Twice a year I go to class size hearings. As they go, this year was not particularly awful. We had only a handful of disagreements, but one proved very interesting. I identified a health class with 39 students. The DOE lawyer expressed shock that I'd protest it, since it was a College Now class. I found that odd, because not only was it not labeled College Now, but also I protest every oversized class, be it College Now, College Later, or just, you know, regular, ordinary high school. (That's what I teach, by the way.)

I often lose the College Now class size grievances. I believe I've won only once. Personally, I fail to see which great service the college is doing for our kids when they dump them in classes of 39. The class in question was a health class. I was pretty shocked to hear that not only was it a College Now class, but that it was also being taught by someone from the college. Previously every one of these courses I'd heard of was taught by either active or retired UFT  members.

When you take College Now classes you get credit for both the college and high school classes. It isn't easy to qualify to teach high school classes. As a high school teacher, I had to be fingerprinted and checked. I had to take and pass tests. I had to be certified. In fact, I'm certified to teach three subjects. I had to pay for each certification. I had to get appointed to a school, eventually. I had to get tenure. I also have to be observed several times a year. I am rated on test scores, and if my rating goes low enough I can lose my job.

What do college teachers need? Basically, they need to get hired. I got hired by Queens College as soon as I got my Master's, and I worked there for 20 years. I've also taught at Nassau Community College. I didn't have to take any test and I didn't have to be fingerprinted. Mostly they left me alone. It was a great way to supplement my income, and I made 50% of my DOE salary at one point. As my DOE salary went up, the percentage fell. Once I became chapter leader, I dumped the second job altogether.

I mostly worked at the English Language Institute at Queens College, where students from other countries would try to work their way into the actual college via our program.  In this program, three teachers would split skills and share a class. Sometimes my colleagues would have discipline issues. They'd bitterly complain that this student did this or that. How could anyone deal with that?

Oddly, I never had problems with any of these students. I barely noticed whatever my colleagues were complaining about. Day to day I marveled that they couldn't handle students I found to be challenging me not at all. The biggest difference between high school and college, for me, was that I could cover material much faster in college. I didn't have to bother with discipline of any sort, for the most part. I don't know what I did differently than my colleagues, but I think my experience dealing quickly with nonsense showed somehow.

For all I know, the college teachers in my school (and I've now identified two of them) are wonderful. Even if that's so, why the hell do we have to jump through all these hoops, pay all these fees, and get all these certificates if the schools can just pull anyone from anywhere to teach anything? Are the college teachers more versatile than we are? Personally, I doubt it. It takes an entirely different skill set to teach high school than it does to teach people who pay for their courses. I'd argue that teaching high school is much more challenging. (I'd also argue it's much more important, and that's why I never pursued a doctorate so as to teach college full time.)

There are all sorts of rules that bind us, including chancellor's regulations. None apply to visiting college teachers. We can be disciplined and they cannot. And anyway, Article One of the Collective Bargaining Agreement says UFT represents teachers of every stripe. We don't represent visiting uncertified college teachers from who knows where.

I filed a grievance demanding that UFT teachers teach these classes. If I lose I'll file another complaining that we ought not to need licenses, tests, certification, chancellor's regs, Danielson, or any of the myriad of things we go through to do this job. I'll also demand they compensate us for all the tests and time and fees. We ought to be whatever, and do whatever, since DOE can choose to allow whoever to teach in city schools.

Nov. 20th Executive Board Takeaway--Happy Talk from Unity and Recycled Class Size Issues

The other night several Unity members told some happy stories about people getting together and standing tall against administration. It's good to hear, but the song remains the same. Everything is good news and sunshine. I sat before the meeting with a distraught adult ed. teacher who was fired because a Principal Felt Like It. Alas, she had spoken to the board once so she can't do so again until next year.

I was not clear why they did this during the speakers portion. In the past, when they had good news, they would invite people to speak during the meeting. I kind of thought this space was reserved for members as opposed to union employees, but what do I know? I guess it's important to get the word out. However, I later received an email stating the following:

Frederick Douglas Academy occupies the 3rd floor of my building. Their principal, as far as I know, is still abusive and the staff has turned over each year. It has an abysmal record with safety and their school report card shows they are academically far behind. Sanchez has spent some time their but the turnaround, if true, is the best kept secret in our building. 

That's a horse of a different color. Of course, I'm not there so I can only report what I hear.

Jonathan Halabi had a delicate approach to a disturbing issue, asking exactly what teachers at DeWitt Clinton and Flushing had done wrong to be placed in the disturbing position of having to reapply for their jobs. Janella Hinds gave probably the best answer that could be given, under the circumstances, but Jonathan isn't happy. Yesterday, he commented:

Our leaders agreed to remove teachers from a school without cause. They did it at other places, and now Clinton and Flushing.

Once upon a time this union would have struck to stop that. This time our leaders negotiated the process - and our leaders will sit on the committee deciding who stays and who goes into the ATR pool.

These are vastly different times. I'd say for better or worse, but it's tough to identify the "better" part. I'm thankful not to be expert on this topic. I think they've closed or reorganized every comprehensive high school in the Bronx. I don't have anything to add to Jonathan's comment. I kind of wish I did.

I know a little more about class sizes, and I addressed the board directly on it. At my last class size hearing, another genius arbitrator ruled, as a "plan of action," that each teacher who had an oversized class would receive one day off a week from their C6 assignments. This is a blatant cop-out, a giveaway to any principal who feels like leaving classes oversized rather than following the contract. A contract is a two-way thing, but sometimes I feel like ours applies only to teachers.

I told the board I've taught oversized classes, and an extra prep is absolutely no help to a teacher. You don't need 40 minutes a week to plan for what can ensue when you face 45 teenagers. You need help, right there in the classroom, to deal. Furthermore, giving the teacher one additional weekly prep has absolutely no value for the students in the classroom, haplessly vying for the teacher's attention, or tuned out due to the chaos of an oversized class. It's nothing short of disgraceful that an organization which claims to place, "Children First, Always," would even ask for such a thing.

I also requested that leadership meet with us to try to come up with an actual plan to deal with this. I know they have some top-secret committee that contains no elected representation from high schools. At some point, Schoor asked who was here from the high schools. A bunch of people raised their hands. However, there are only six of us who actually represent the high schools. The others were rejected by high school voters and elected "at large." And every single one of them votes lockstep as told or they wouldn't be there. I have no idea what any of them contribute to our group beyond calling the question so Unity can vote us down.

In any case, when trying to solve a problem, consulting with the Stepford Reps is of no value I can discern. Since their opinions are restricted by loyalty oath, and therefore whatever leadership dictates them to be, they carry no particular importance, let alone any independent voice. I watched them sit in Minnesota and be told how to vote. I've watched them sit at 52, over and over, and wait until they are cued to support whatever.

I can understand how leadership might feel more at home by adding a few rubber stamps to the table, to say yes to whatever. Why should they listen to uncomfortable realities when they can simply recruit a dozen people to tell them everything is wonderful and this is the Best of All Possible Worlds?

I will try to set up a meeting, and we'll see where it goes. It would be best if we could agree on a substantive improvement. We have a considerable standing impediment in that we're told anything related to contract negotiations must go to the sacred and top secret Committee of 300. I cannot imagine a more unwieldy way to do anything, even if 98% of the committee members had not signed loyalty oaths. If I recall correctly, the last committee of 300 voted up the MOA without having ever seen it.

But if things go south, we can always let them vote down another resolution about class size. There's no doubt in my mind that the class size guarantees, as practiced, are virtually worthless. Why we and NYSUT haven't mobilized a march on Albany to enforce the C4E ruling is beyond my imagination. One thing I regularly tell this board is that we are the true advocates for the children of New York State.

Like everything else that does not originate from the Unity Spin Machine, it seems to fall on deaf ears.

The Class Size Conundrum

Last year I brought a class size resolution to the UFT Executive Board. Of course they voted it down, because it's overkill. Of course the contract says there are 34 students per high school class, and 50 years ago they gave up something or other to have it enshrined in writing. That ought to be good enough for anyone.

The only issue, as far as I can see, is that the DOE has no respect whatsoever for the contract. There are oversized classes all over the city. UFT leadership seems not to perceive that as a flaw. After all, it says, right there in black and white, that we have limits. So what's the big deal?

Of course, there are exceptions. If you teach PE or music, you could have up to 50. And if you work in a school like mine you might have not five, but ten classes. You see, the geniuses in Albany have decreed that it's OK to give PE every other day. So there you are, with 500 students, and some AP demanding you differentiate instruction even though it's largely impossible for a standard human to even learn the students' names.

That's OK, isn't it? No? Well, it isn't really fair of me to imply that leadership is doing nothing about it. When I complained about it, they pointed out that they had started a committee, with the DOE, where they, you know, talk about stuff. And they made it a point to let me know that my school, which has been in violation of class size rules forever, was one of the schools they talk about.

What exactly they say I don't know. After all, I'm just a lowly chapter leader and member of the Executive Board representing city high schools. Why would they include me in discussions involving my high school? They're talking about it with someone, somewhere, and that should be good enough for me. But it isn't. Last year I placed an article in the Daily News about how some genius arbitrator had decided that relieving teachers of their C6 assignment one day a week was sufficient to compensate for class size issues.

Of course, now that there was a UFT committee sitting around talking about something, somewhere, with someone, everything would be completely different. In fact, for the second half of last year, the "action plan" entailed placing a licensed teacher in each oversized class to help the teacher and students out. This was not perfect, but made a lot of sense to me.

However, last month I went back, and what do you think the learned arbitrator suggested? He suggested that any teacher in our school with an oversized class would be relieved from the C6 assignment one day a week. That's absurd. Oversized classes are very tough to deal with. In fact, 34 is already the highest class size in the state. Going beyond that is unconscionable. We're moving backward rather than forward, and there are no viable consequences for violating the contract.

It's nice that a bunch of people from UFT and DOE are sitting around somewhere drinking coffee. But from the perspective of a chapter leader and class size advocate, it's clear to me that the committee has had no effect whatsoever on class size issues.

It's kind of remarkable that a city that claims to place children first, always, thinks that providing children with less tutoring will somehow make up for their utter disrespect for one thing we know to be effective--reasonable class sizes.

Put a Letter in My Box

That was the advice I got from a former chapter leader. What do you do when you get advice like that? Me, I'd write a letter and put it in his box. I can't remember whether or not there was any follow up.

I do recall, though, that the main advice I got from the guy who I replaced was to say that to everyone and everything. "80% of them won't do it," he confided. I also recall the first time, as chapter leader, I had a UFT rep visit our school. She shared these very same words of wisdom with me. I'm thinking they likely came from on high.

When I became chapter leader I made it a point to get every email address I could. I opened a new gmail account and sorted the addresses by department so I could mail to one group at a time. I get email all the time and I answer it instantly. It comes to my phone and buzzes my watch. I figure it's my job to either respond to member queries, or find someone who can, but what do I know?

At UFT Executive Board they never tell me to put a letter in their box. (I don't even know whether or not they have boxes, and if they did their locations would probably be top secret.) I stand up and ask questions at virtually every meeting. At the last two, the response was some variation or other of, "We'll get back to you." When I cited Class Size Matters research on overcrowding, Howie Schoor questioned their assertion, based on DOE figures, that half of our students were in overcrowded conditions. He then said he'd get back to us. I've now had two reps from Class Size Matters offer to explain their research to the board. I told Howie the good news, but he hasn't seen fit to respond.

It's pretty clear to me that put a letter in my box is code for, "I'd rather not be bothered." I see increasing evidence this is unofficial leadership policy. It's telling that UFT's website offers no clue that members are free to address the Executive Board. It's only because the high school reps invite and enable people visiting that they've heard from so many abused teachers this year. I have no doubt the majority would rather approve the minutes, tell one another what a great job they're doing, eat the crappy sandwiches and go home twenty minutes later.

As for immediate action, I get mixed messages from UFT leadership On the one hand, I hear that we need to organize pre-Janus. The Constitutional Convention seems an ideal opportunity to foster that. I've got 300 members in my school. Thus far, after many meetings, I've amassed just six or seven buttons and two bumper magnets. I wore the button and every time someone asked about it I gave it away. I now have none. I got one bumper magnet at the citywide chapter leader meeting, and it's on my car. (The only reason it's still there is because I tend to park my car outside the building, so no one asks me about it.) My district rep. gave me one more, and I gave it away within minutes. I'm amazed that they've failed to utilize such a simple, consciousness-raising organizing tool effectively.

In fact, last week I stayed after the Queens chapter leader meeting for a con-con meeting. I already know about con-con. In fact, I recruited a whole lot of people to COPE, for the first time ever, so as to fight it. I went there specifically to collect swag I could distribute to members. Instead, I endured 30 minutes of a two-hour lecture, learned there were no more bumper magnets, and mercifully left before I had to hear the other 90.

As for organizing post-Janus, I'm just not sure. For me it's a moral imperative to pay union dues. But my most dreaded task as chapter leader is collecting $15 a head, per year, for our Sunshine Fund. Some people tell me the UFT didn't get them LIFO, the day came out of their bank, and therefore they aren't giving the union any more money. I tell them this money goes to a luncheon and gifts for members but they don't care. Some people tell me they have phone and electric bills. Some say they don't feel well-served by UFT but won't say why. I'm not confident they'll instantly agree if I ask they send $1200 a year to 52 Broadway.

A few weeks ago at Executive Board, some genius or other in leadership decided it would be a good idea to abridge our right to bring resolutions. It was odd because we weren't all that focused on resolutions. We had just come from a very positive meeting with HS VP Janella Hinds and were looking to work together. We walk out, go down to the meeting, and they essentially inform us we can go screw ourselves.

Here are a few things to ponder:

1. Technically, membership should guide the Delegate Assembly. The DA, theoretically, is the highest-ranking body in the UFT.  Executive Board should support th DA, and AdCom should support the Executive Board. In reality, AdCom makes most of the decisions for UFT and are never voted down by Executive Board or DA. 20,000 high school teachers have no democratically elected representation on AdCom.

2. NYSUT is the NY State teacher union.20,000 high school teachers have no democratically elected representation on NYSUT.

3. AFT is the national teacher union. 20,000 high school teachers have no democratically elected representation on AFT.

4. A whole lot of chapter leaders join the Unity Caucus. They all sign loyalty oaths and do as they're told. Many are motivated by patronage rather than activism. To be successful post-Janus, UFT needs to emphasize the latter over the former. Leadership is spectacularly unprepared to do that.

5. None of the high school reps have UFT jobs. We are activists, each and every one, doing the work regardless of what leadership does for us (or to us). Leadership seems to feel that spitting in our faces is somehow productive. Thus they demand advance notice of resolutions, even though we all teach full-time, come from all over the city and have very limited time to meet.

I've actually been trying to work with UFT leadership on multiple levels. I didn't attend the meeting with Janella just to pass the time. I have 500 other things I could be doing. I can't speak for the other high school EB members, but that anti-resolution resolution dialed my good will back by a good two years.

And hey, for every action there's a reaction. Unity doesn't consider things like that, and that's why we're facing, for example, Janus.

This was one of the stupidest moves I've ever seen, and stupid is not what's going to save the United Federation of Teachers. You want real activists to help and support you, UFT leadership? You might try treating us with a modicum of respect.

Otherwise, put a letter in my box.

In 2017

I was at a meeting the other day where an administrator told me, “In 2017, we don’t do things like that.” The particulars of that discussion aren't  important. The fact is a lot of things have changed. I’m not the same teacher I was 20 years ago. I’m sensitive to what goes on around me and I evolve as necessary. I love using computers, for example, and ever since I was kicked out of the trailers I’ve been able to use them in my classroom.

Here’s the thing—I walked out of the meeting about what 2017 was like and directly into a classroom that was diabolical. The AC, which was fixed the previous day, no longer worked. I’m in the middle of a project. I’m working up to taking my classes to see Wicked on Broadway, courtesy of TDF. I therefore have to show my kids The Wizard of Oz and at least try to make them understand it. Try making anyone understand anything in a hundred degree humid room.

You’d think in 2017 you’d have air conditioning. I mean, how does anyone muster the audacity to lecture teachers on the way children should be treated and then dump them into hellish environments? If some kid got offended because I told him to sit down without the requisite happy smile and I therefore get a letter in my file, why don’t the assistant principal, the principal, the chancellor and the mayor get them when kids have to sit through lessons in rooms unfit for man or beast? And as if that isn’t enough, they challenge and lecture the girl who comes in a halter top with cutoffs split up to her belt loops. Given climate conditions, she’s the smartest person in the room. Instead of sending her home, they should make her valedictorian.

In 2017 we should know that teacher voice is a thing. It’s got various meanings and implications, but to me, teacher voice is how you choose to approach your job. It’s entirely possible that you do that in a completely different manner than I do. But that doesn’t suggest either of us is better or worse. Yet in 2017 we have a checklist. Teacher did or didn’t do this, that or the other thing. Therefore teacher is highly effective or teacher sucks. I’m sorry, but a competent administrator could write up a lesson and explain what is good and what could be improved, and do it without a cookie-cutter checklist. A competent administrator used to be a teacher, and has his or her own teacher voice. Maybe that voice could help other teachers.

Here’s the thing, though—In 2017, and you might want to sit down before you hear this, but in 2017 not all supervisors are competent. Some are small-minded and power obsessed. Some think they are smarter than they actually are. Some think there’s only one way to do things and can’t conceive that things could be done any other way. You have to use the green card and the red card to see if students understand. If you don’t, you suck and I’ll rate you ineffective. I knew a supervisor who thought that. Maybe, if administrators aren't capable of broader thinking, they should should be working at Burger King, where the mission is more clear-cut.

In fact, I knew a supervisor who had a member so on edge that every time he saw him, he had an a-fib episode. The following year, another member in the same department had a heart attack in the hall. That, of course, didn’t stop the supervisor from walking in her classroom on a half day when only eight students were in attendance, and giving her an awful writeup. The year after that he topped himself once again when a member he threatened to rate ineffective went home and died prematurely.

In the UF of T in 2017, there are seven elected members of the High School Executive Board. We are all from the opposition caucus. The Vice President is from the dominant caucus because in 2017 high school teachers are not allowed to select their own VP. And at the last Executive Board meeting, they changed the rules so that we have to place any resolutions on the tables 30 minutes before the meeting. That’s problematic because it’s anti-democratic. But there are other issues here.

In 2017, I’d be surprised if even a single Unity Executive Board member did not hold some paid position at UFT. At the very least they’re all delegates, voting at conventions where, in 2017, high school teachers have no democratically elected representation whatsoever. It’s a little different for us. In 2017, I travel from my non-air-conditioned classroom in Queens to 52 Broadway, and my fellow members come in from boroughs across the city.

Unlike the union leaders, we don’t have secretaries to run off copies. We don’t have people to run to the room and hand out stuff. As a matter of fact, in 2017, I’m not even sure whether we’re allowed to go up and enter the room thirty minutes before the meeting starts. Unity now says if we submit in advance, they'll print things up for us and distribute them. Here's the thing--given they outnumber us, and given they have voted everything we've presented down with the exception of one (which they cut to the bone), they're effectively asking that we give them advance notice of everything we do. In an already rigged system, that's an unfair advantage they neither need nor merit.

Regarding advance notice, they do nothing of the sort for us. They have the numbers to pass whatever, and our input is neither sought nor welcome. In fact we support virtually all they present, because we are not contrary for the sake of being so. They sprang the anti-democratic resolution on us without warning. Maybe they thought, given the time constraints, that like them, we wouldn't be able to respond. They were wrong.

It's easy to give a sincere response. It's harder to rationalize doing the wrong thing. If Unity can't think of appropriate ways to respond to resolutions that unequivocally support teachers and students, resolutions about class size and abusive administrators, in 2017, time is not the issue.

Class Size and Its Discontents

Class sizes are the sort of things I have bad dreams about. As chapter leader of the largest school in Queens, likely the most overcrowded in the city, it haunts me. When I first took this job, we were running a 13 period day and carried 4600 students. I wrote about it in the Daily News and elsewhere. I haunted education writers night and day, and got us into the Post, repeatedly, and the Times too.

I watched Bloomberg and Klein acknowledge us on TV, mumbling weasel excuses for their blithering incompetence. At that time, then-UFT VP Leo Casey was able to arrange a meeting at Tweed with reps from UFT, CSE, DOE, and our School Leadership Team. We came to an agreement that we would reduce enrollment at Lewis via fewer out-of-district entries and carefully checking that those within district actually lived there. Our then-principal, in exchange for this, gave up some selected seats.

This worked for a while but little by little it began to fall apart. For reasons I won't go into here, repeating what I did in 2009 became untenable. However I had the good fortune to be elected to the UFT Executive Board this year, and when I complained about our renewed overcrowding Ellie Engler was very receptive. She arranged a meeting with the School Construction Authority and we came to an agreement to construct an annex behind our school to not only replace our miserable outdated trailers, but also to provide additional space for our existing students.

And still, while we await construction, overcrowding continues unabated not only in our school, but all over the city. We are fortunate to have great advocates like Leonie Haimson and Tish James, who are now holding the city's feet to the fire over its failure to fulfill its obligations to provide reasonable class sizes for our children. The fact is class sizes have been increasing rather than decreasing for years, and despite Carmen Fariña's proclamations about the great job she does, this does not leave our children well-served.

There is no substitute for reasonable class sizes. Since I've been counting class sizes I couldn't help but notice that 34 has become the norm rather than the maximum. This is unconscionable, particularly for the ESL students I serve. They need more attention, not less, and I'm grateful and happy that someone other than me notices it and is fighting for them.

The fact is that the city routinely ignores areas and schools like mine, where we are bursting at the seams with no end in sight. I'm very grateful for the support of both UFT and the city in expanding our facility, but I'm far from confident this will be a permanent solution. While the current principal and I will fight to keep our population from expanding once the annex goes up, neither of us will be around forever. We will have to trust that the city and those who follow us will continue to ensure that safeguards remain.

Sadly, experience suggests they will not do that. We need more people like Haimson and James to keep up the fight. And we need UFT leadership to strongly support this too. 

At the Skinnies

The highlight of the educational season, of course, is the Class Size Matters Skinny Awards. Leonie Haimson organizes them and finds a whole lot of cool stuff happening in education. In fact, I won one year. People are always coming up to me and saying, "Hey, aren't you that guy who won the Skinny award?" I get all "Aw shucks," before coming around and saying, "Yeah, that's me."

The restaurant was okay, and we got a coupon for a free drink. However, they didn't have tap beer so Norm Scott and I ran down the block and found some. Norm picked up the tab, and I'm thankful, but three years ago we drank fourteen-dollar beers at the NY Hilton and I paid. I'm still waiting for someone to buy me a fourteen-dollar beer. But you can hardly find them anywhere. 

This year there were multiple people and things that bore celebrating. First, of course, were the lawyers who gave their time to Class Size Matters. There were up and down stories, but I was very happy to hear of a victory against one of my least favorite humans, Andrew Cuomo. Though Cuomo claims to be a "student lobbyist," he lobbies for less money for schools that most need it. Wendy Lecker and David Sciarra put an end to that plan.

Another victory was rendering School Leadership Team meetings public, and that was led by Arthur Schwartz and Laura Barbieri. When this first happened, I wondered why it was so important. At my school, SLT meetings are not particularly eventful, and I always kind of thought if anyone wanted to watch, well, go ahead. In fact sometimes people did ask and that's exactly what we told them. But things are different elsewhere, and I'll get back to that.

It was amazing and inspiring to see two student journalists from Townsend Harris. Brian Sweeney, their faculty advisor, had nothing but praise for Mehrose Ahmad and Sumaita Hasan, and it was great to see students honored in a forum that usually recognizes adults.

These particular students worked to expose their then-principal, Rosemarie Jahoda, and I don't suppose she'll be sending them a Christmas card. There is, nonetheless, a never-ending supply of shortsighted Leadership Academy principals with little teaching experience and even less regard for either students or faculty. It's really hard for me to understand why the DOE looks at an administrator who's presided over other disasters and says, "Hey, let's give that person a promotion."

A great moment for me was when the CPE 1 parents were honored. Their determination and dedication is an example for us all. I've watched them for months as they showed up everywhere and anywhere to tell their story to everyone and anyone. They broke into song as they were honored. They represent what can be if we are fearless and determined. They are a model, and given Orange Man's plan to make the USA Right to Work, we're gonna need a good model. They attended not only their SLT meetings, but also the 3020a hearings of the chapter leader, like the UFT delegate, facing charges for no reason whatsoever, according to the arbitrators.

Regents Chancellor Betty Rosa was there. Diane Ravitch was there. Representing the UFT as far as I could see, other than Norm and yours truly, were Katie Lapham, Jonathan Halabi, Gary Rubinstein, and Aixa Rodriguez. UFT leadership sent exactly no one to celebrate these achievements. At the Executive Board and the Delegate Assembly they spoke of what a good job they did at Harris and CPE 1, but it appears beyond the pale for them to either celebrate with or give any sliver of credit to spontaneous and independent education activism. 

I don't doubt that leadership helped with both of these situations, but these things don't happen in isolation. The key factor in both these situations was the actors themselves, to wit, the people being honored at the Skinnies. Leadership's role was one of support. To praise itself while ignoring the incredible bravery of the kids at Harris, or the community at CPE 1, is folly, to say the very least.

Therefore, UFT leadership's absence on Tuesday night was beyond disappointing. Come Right to Work America we're gonna need all the help we can get. Activism will no longer be optional, and we will need to not only celebrate it, but also replicate it wherever possible. If we're too timid and cautious to ally ourselves with those who support progressive education, we're gonna find ourselves out on a limb and all alone. It's sorely disappointing that not one UFT official could show, or even assign someone else to show.

I sincerely hope that leadership can be just a little more forward thinking, beginning right now, and I hope to see someone next year representing the union at large. I'm sure there will be similar events before next year, and in case they want ideas, they know where to find me. As for the Skinnies, if they can't scrape up the money to buy a couple of tickets next year, it's on me. Just let me know.

Little things can mean a lot.

DA Takeaway June 2017

I agree with Mulgrew that the state ought to keep out of NYC business. While Mulgrew spoke of this in terms of mayoral control, I'd argue it extends to a few other areas. I recall when our good buddy Senator Flanagan was pushing the Bloomberg dream bill that would kill seniority rights for NYC teachers only. It was amazing this guy had the audacity to back this bill, which wouldn't have affected his district at all.

Another example of the state pushing its unwelcome nose into NYC issues was when it insisted that NYC pay for charter rent whether or not it wanted said charters. Back when reformy Mike Bloomberg was mayor, he could do any damn thing he wanted, When NYC chose a leader who openly opposed charters, the state needed to supersede the voters. School choice, actually, means you choose to support and enrich the reformies. When you choose otherwise, screw you and the horse-carriage you rode around Central Park in.

I don't, however, support mayoral control. I agree with Mulgrew that the current form is awful, but I have not been altogether impressed with the central DOE. I'd like to see a form of governance that had community voice beyond the ability to get up at PEP and be ignored by all. James Eterno suggests, without mayoral control, we might see that. For my money, mayoral control has been a disaster, resulting in the breakup of many community schools and a weakening of union citywide. I have no idea what it's good for, other than weakening community. Diane Ravitch wrote Gates and other reformies love it, because they don't have to go through all that messy democracy stuff. Patrick Sullivan would shed no tears for its demise.

Of course I'm not happy with the ATR severance package. I'd like to see ATR teachers be, you know, teachers, rather than individuals condemned to wander the DOE desert. I know that if my school were closed it would be very tough for me to find a job, and my observation reports are not bad at all. Yet I'm at top salary, and I'm confident my principal would offer little protest if I were to refer to myself as a pain in the ass. We have known for decades that it was tough for seasoned teachers to transfer into higher-paying Long Island districts. The 2005 contract made it just as difficult for us to move within our own district.

There was quite an interesting comment from an elementary chapter leader who's been excessed after 16 years. Her principal had been told to max out the classes and get rid of everyone she no longer needed. She asked about class size reduction, which would save her job. Mulgrew said UFT was on the case, and I hope he's right. However, at an Executive Board meeting where we pushed class size as a priority, we were told the union sacrificed to place class size in the contract. It wasn't mentioned that it happened 50 years ago, and judging from the excessed chapter leader, it has worked in a less than optimal fashion. Mulgrew, who generally pops in to say a few words and leaves, wasn't even there. Class size needs to be much more of a priority than it is now. There are multiple reasons for this, but if we want to be selfish and look only at how it benefits teachers, that chapter leader is a case in point.

Jonathan Halabi got up and objected to the endorsement of Fernando Cabrera. Cabrera's beliefs, according to this piece, and the included video, are less than praiseworthy, to me at least.

"Godly people are in government," Mr. Cabrera said, referring to Uganda's leadership. "Gay marriage is not accepted in this country. Even when the United States of America has put pressure and has told Uganda, 'We’re not going to fund you anymore unless you allow gay marriage.' And they have stood in their place. Why? Because the Christians have assumed the place of decision-making for the nation."

Mr. Cabrera goes on to praise the nation's socially conservative positions for an alleged rapid decline in the country’s AIDS rate, and says the infusion of religion into government has helped the country's financial outlook.

I can only suppose that I'm not Mr. Cabrera's kind of people. I'd certainly hope that UFT leadership weren't either. A Unity member got up and asserted that what Jonathan said wasn't true, with no evidence as to why not. It's pretty clear to me that Jonathan was absolutely right, and that Cabrera's ties to the so-called alt-right indicate he's not to be trusted.

Peter Lamphere got up and asked for support for FMPR. I went to the Dark Horse pub afterward and listened to FMPR President Mercedes Martinez. I left completely assured she is a badass advocate for Puerto Rican teachers, students and people, willing to go the extra mile for them. They did, however, disaffiliate themselves from AFT at some point, and there's a lot of bad blood. I'd argue FMPR, in its current form, is kind of a union opposition caucus on steroids. Of course, I think there is a need for such organizations.

A big hanging question mark is Janus. I had hoped Mulgrew would elaborate on what the state might do to counter it. Instead I heard that it will depend on what the specific ruling is, and I can't argue with that. It's funny to be a chapter leader, contemplating what to do with people who choose not to pay union dues. It's pretty sad that we live in a country so ignorant of what union means for working people.

Maybe we should move to make the American union movement a bigger part of what we teach in history classes. When I was in high school, I heard not one single word about it. I hear it gets covered somewhat, but I think its importance is not well understood, even within our union. I have issues with UFT leadership, and I may have referred to them here or there on this little blog. But I know exactly where we stand without union, and it's no place I want to be. It's no place I want for my kid or my students either.

On Class Size--Pay More, Get Less

That's what's happening in Fun City today. Even as the Daily News complains payroll is up by $159 million, we might not be seeing a concurrent improvement in services. Actually, even the article admits that's a 1.57% increase, so I'm not sure why it merits attention. Teachers just got a raise, a good portion of which we earned a decade ago, but it's so recent it's probably not reflected in even this modest increase.

The fact is that this money pays for fewer classroom teachers. Back when Emperor Bloomberg ruled New York City, he decided to stop frittering away money on classroom teachers. At first he huffed and puffed and tried to blow up seniority rights. He threatened to fire a whole lot of teachers. After Bloomberg failed to remove them, he was faced with firing new teachers, you know, the ones who aren't evil like those of us with experience. UFT made a deal to forestall firings, and Bloomberg simply didn't bother replacing teachers who left.

This might seem like a win-win, but it depends where you look and who you ask. For example, if you asked the folks at Tweed, the ones who place Children First, Always, they'll tell you this is the best of all possible worlds, we live in the best of all possible times, and our kids are in the best of all possible classrooms. I guess if you ignore Brexit, Trump, kids learning in closets, bathrooms, trailers, hallways and elsewhere, you might be in agreement.

But there's something that teachers on the ground see that the idealists haven't picked up on. The UFT Contract has not substantially changed on class size. In fact, it hasn't evolved in over half a century. But as far as I can see, maximum class size has pretty much become the norm. I have spent an awful lot of time with our 50-plus page master schedule this year. Classes are 34, 34, 34 and 34. Of course there are exceptions, particularly in gym and music, where they are 50, 50, and 50. And there are exceptions. You'll see 33, 32, 49 and 48. But they're now the exceptions.

Is it any wonder that we have thousands of oversized classes? I've spent all year fighting oversized classes in my school, and mine is far from the worst. Despite an arbitrator's ruling that all class sizes be fixed, when that proved to be too much trouble, we had a "compliance call." This resulted in extra teachers licensed in the subject area being assigned to assist. It's not ideal, but better than nothing. Yet still now, with only a handful of days left, not all classes are in compliance with even that modest demand.

At the UFT Executive Board, Unity members are outright indignant at any suggestion that our class size regs need improvement. They formed a committee, they say, they're discussing it, and that ought to be good enough for anyone. We gave up money for these class size regulations, they say, even though virtually no one in the room was teaching at the time these regulations were established.

Actually, the amount of money the Daily News bemoans is a relative drop in the bucket. If we're really gonna focus on what the public wants, we need look no further than the parent surveys, consistently ignored by the DOE. When offered the option, what public school parents want is lower class sizes. As a teacher, I couldn't agree more.

But what we end up getting from the people who muster the audacity to claim they put "Children First, Always," is education on the cheap. Pack 'em in, hope for the best, and blame the teachers if they fail. We have a cookie-cutter rubric to rate teachers and class size plays no part in it whatsoever.

Do you want to know who really places children first? First there are the parents. Those of us who actually send our kids to public schools care a lot about what goes on. Secondly, there are the teachers. Of course we care about learning conditions, if for no other reason than learning conditions are our teaching conditions. We get up every morning to serve these children, and for that we are treated like criminals by administrators and periodicals right up to the New York Times and our pussy-grabbing President.

If NYC wants value for its dollar, it will demand that newly-progressive Governor Cuomo cough up the money for class size reduction mandated by the CFE lawsuit, Otherwise, putting children first is nothing but more lip service.

Is There Any Point to UFT Class Size Regs?

Is that a silly question? I don't know anymore. Maybe it's because I haven't had that many relatively serious issues. I mean. I go to the arbitration hearings with a few dozen oversized classes. I regularly see colleagues with two or three hundred. It's understandable that things are a mess the first few weeks, but usually with time we can iron things out.

The thing is, that doesn't always happen. I know this because I regularly have to return in February. Sometimes this is because we have College Now classes that are oversized. The DOE will argue that these classes are funded by outside sources so they aren't covered. Hey, thanks a lot, colleges, for funding classes that exceed 34. You're doing a great service for our high school students. Sometimes oversized classes are taught by supervisors. Because they aren't UFT, they aren't covered by the contract. It's ironic that the people who are supposed to model best practices don't give a golly gosh darn how many kids they shove into classrooms. I guess that's why they get paid the big bucks.

Now when you go in February, you have to wait a while for the ruling. This year, the ruling came out on March 28th, but I didn't see it until April 4th. This means that over 40% of the semester had gone by for my school and others with absolutely nothing done about the issue. I'm not precisely sure how well  that represents the "Children First, Always" mantra of the NYC Department of Education. One of the ironic things about that motto is that it's actually me advocating for better conditions, while the DOE fights to violate rules that already leave our kids with the highest class sizes in the state.

It's May now, and 60% of the semester is over. The DOE lawyer told my principal that he didn't need to follow the order for the class size reduction. Rather, he said, he should follow the ruling of the last administrator that said relieve teachers of one day's C6 assignment. You know, one less day of teacher tutoring. That's how we put "Children First, Always" in New York City.

I'm still waiting on the mysterious "compliance call" mentioned nowhere in the UFT Contract. Who would've thunk that once you win in arbitration, all it means is one more delaying tactic? Let's imagine a best-case scenario here. Let's say that this call takes place some time today. Let's say the arbitrator sticks to his guns and says cut the crap and follow the rule you agreed upon. Let's take the even more unlikely step of imagining that my school and the others affected by this order, Flushing, Forest Hills, and Hillcrest, all comply with this order later today.

What that will mean is that, for the classes that are fixed, that 40% of the semester will comply with clear regs. Actually, though, that's not necessarily true. A few weeks in June are dominated by Regents exams, and the last two days are a ridiculous appendage added by Walcott even though grades are already in and finalized. So it will be less than 40%. In fact, in cases where classes are annualized, the classes have spent 80% of the year oversized, so they will be less than 20% in compliance.

DOE argues that in semi-annualized schools we ought not to be able to grieve twice a year, reorganization notwithstanding. The way they put "Children First, Always," is to hope for the best in a Fall ruling and then say, "Screw you for the rest of the year. Sit in your crowded classrooms and leave us the hell alone."

I was able to work out a long-term solution for my school, with the help of UFT's Ellie Engler. In three or four years we should have an annex, and we ought to be able to accommodate the kids who now sit in our crumbling trailers and windowless closets. A simpler solution would have been to accommodate the number of students our building actually supports, but that wasn't in the cards. More importantly, my school is just one. What about the others? Who knows?

It's great that we have these regs written into the contract. It's not quite as great that we haven't managed to modify them in 50 years. With all the exceptions and red tape built into them, they clearly don't work as intended. It's amazing the "Children First, Always" city regularly pays lawyers to find ways to violate the rather lax class size limits it negotiated half a century ago.

Even more amazing is that we need to hold hearings in order to manage such simple regs. If class sizes are 34, why the hell don't we just keep classes at 34? Why does even UFT leadership fight efforts to do that?

Our class size regulations allow us to have the highest class sizes in NY State. Our weakly worded Contract leaks like a sieve and allows the city to violate them with impunity almost at will. And that's not even considering the CFE lawsuit, which said we'd make things better rather than worse.

If the city wants to put "Children First" ever, it has to do better. And UFT leadership can do better as well. I renew my call that they work with us and other class size advocates. I renew my call that we become the advocates for children we signed up to be when we took this job in the first place.

Class Size Regulations v. Reality

I've been chapter leader for eight years now, and at least six times a year I need to go through our 50 plus page master schedule and identify oversized classes. I'm not particularly drawn to spreadsheets, and it isn't exactly fun for me. But it's my job nonetheless, so I do it.

Most years we have a handful of oversized classes, and we work it out one way or another. Sometimes they rule against me, saying this or that class isn't subject to the Contract. In the fall, some arbitrator decided we should just keep all the oversized classes, but that teachers would get one day off from their C6 assignments, e.g. tutoring. This struck me as so absurd that I wrote an op-ed for the Daily News over it.

I see simplicity as a virtue, and I admire writers who are able to make points simply. Though my job sometimes requires it, I do not much love wading through convoluted nonsense. Therefore when the Contract says there shall be no more than 34 students in a high school class, I interpret it to mean just that. If there are 35, you move one out.

But the Contract cites various exceptions, and if you don't meet them and are oversized anyway, it specifies that there should be a "plan of action." As I mentioned, last Fall, that was relief from one C6 period per week. To me, that seemed more like a plan of inaction. I mean, the problem was oversized classes. How on earth does granting me one additional weekly prep period make the class smaller? How does reducing my tutoring load help me to give more attention to my students?

This semester was a little better. The arbitrator did the right thing, and told our school, among others, to just fix the class sizes. I thought we had finally achieved something.  But it's a month in and nothing has happened. Now they tell me there's something called a "compliance call." This phrase is not in the UFT Contract.

Evidently, though, if you follow all the rules, if you get a favorable ruling, there is this extra step. Who knew? So the principal sits around and does nothing. What's the consequence for this? There is none, of course. Where does this stuff even come from?

In my school, it appears to me that compliance is possible. In other schools, there is no space, there are no rooms, and there are fewer options. What kind of system admits children to school when there is no place to put them? Even now the mayor is planning to expand pre-K and is giving no thought to the number of additional seats that will entail. Even now the Moskowitz machine is taking up even more space as teachers, students, and communities are displaced to make room for test-prep factories that toss out kids who don't get the grade, literally.

So here's my question--how do you bargain in good faith and make agreements with people when rules and rulings mean nothing? How do you make deals with people who have no regard for rules they themselves have already agreed to?  If they won't follow them anyway, why bother? What's the point of SBOs and PROSE in a system that can't or won't follow minimum standards in serving children?

What's the point of spending time examining and rewriting rules that only bind one side? How are they helpful? In fact, if they apply to only one side of the table, they're not only useless to us and our students, but also counter-productive.

I never heard of a compliance call. Maybe when that doesn't work, they'll go out and sacrifice a goat to the god of bureaucracy.  That would make as much sense as anything I've seen this year.

On Class Size and Contract

Readers of this blog may recall that, along with my MORE-New Action high school colleagues, I introduced a class size resolution to the UFT Executive Board last December. I did this in response to an outrageous ruling by an arbitrator. The arbitrator ruled that every teacher at Francis Lewis High School with oversized classes be relieved for one C6 period per week.

Evidently, the arbitrator believed an extra 40 minutes of prep time would compensate for having class sizes above 34. (Amazingly, the same arbitrator said Forest Hills would get one C6 period per oversized class, so if you had two oversized classes there, you got two C6 periods off, as opposed to the one you'd get at Lewis.)

I was just a little upset by that, and that's why I worked on that resolution. Predictably, Unity Caucus rejected our resolution outright. The reason they gave was that "we" had sacrificed so as to place class size in the contract. I found that argument ridiculous, as that happened 50 years ago when almost none of us were in the system, and when a whole lot of people in the room had not even been born.

So there I was, with an absurd ruling from a $1600 a day arbitrator, and with union leadership essentially siding with her, telling me she had made rulings that were not insane in the past. While I was encouraged to hear she'd had lucid moments, I was still outraged by the ruling. I decided to write it up and send it to the Daily News, and what do you know, they published it.

While UFT leadership did not accept the resolution, they had formed a committee to meet and discuss class sizes. Now it's great to talk about this stuff and try to work it out, but meanwhile we were still stuck with the stupid ruling from the arbitrator. UFT, my administration and I had a few meetings about this, and I contended if we were to have an action plan for oversized classes, it ought to demand a second qualified subject teacher help with them. For example, if I had 38 students, maybe a certified ESL teacher could take the students most in need of targeted assistance somewhere in the building and offer them assistance.

Of course we still had oversized classes in February, and UFT filed a grievance on our behalf. I received the rulings for Francis Lewis, Flushing, Hillcrest and Forest Hills and they are identical. Arbitrator Jay M. Siegel ordered that all schools reduce class sizes and come into compliance. He ordered, if it were necessary, that the schools create additional classes to do so.

My UFT contact told me this was the strongest language he'd ever seen. I'm happy about that, because honestly, this is how it should be done. If principals think they can overcrowd hundreds of classes and they'll lose one day of tutoring, why the hell shouldn't they continue to do so? How does it affect their bottom line? I don't see it.

If, on the other hand, principals know they can be ordered into compliance, it's a different issue. Principals may think twice before oversizing classes. Of course that ruling is only four schools, and I can't say how reflective it is of the city as a whole. I cannot say for sure that my Daily News article had any influence, and UFT leadership cannot say for sure that the committee changed anything. Maybe we're both right. Maybe we're both wrong.

Regardless of what happened or why, I'm glad of the result. I have differences with leadership, but this isn't one of them. I hope this is replicated all over the city.

Downsides of Democracy

Donald Trump is about to become President of the United States, and that wouldn't be possible in a democracy. First of all, the guy actually lost by almost three million votes. Second, his agenda doesn't fly with most of the American people, including a whole lot who voted for him. And with more people voting for Democrats in the Senate than Republicans, he just wouldn't be able to enact his agenda if some votes weren't worth more than others.

A majority of Americans want health care for all. A majority of Americans want college to be affordable. A majority of Americans want a vibrant middle class and a society in which people who work can actually support themselves. But Donald Trump and the GOP think people should pull themselves up by their bootstraps, whatever the hell bootstraps are, and make do with the millions of dollars they inherit from their Daddies, as Trump did, or with whatever they can steal while in office, and everyone else can go to hell.

In the UFT, the system is similar in that democracy is kind of frowned upon. I sit on the UFT Executive Board, elected by the high school teachers along with six of my colleagues. And yet James Eterno, who the high school teachers selected as Vice President, is sitting home watching his two kids. Now there's nothing wrong with watching kids. In fact I've met his kids and they are lovely. But why isn't James representing us at AdCom, and why isn't anyone representing us ad AdCom?

It's the system, don't you know. Once in the eighties, Mike Shulman of New Action won the election for high school VP, and that was unacceptable. The only thing to do was contest the election and hold it again in order to get the result demanded by leadership. Well, the second time they did it, not only did he win again, but he also won by a higher margin. Therefore they did the only thing they could, which was rig the vote. Once Shulman was gone and they controlled everything once again, they changed the rules so that elementary teachers, retirees and nurses could help select the High School VP. Voila! No more Mike Shulman, and no James Eterno, ever.

So now there's something called Team High School that doesn't have to bother to actually represent the majority of high school teachers. Consult with elected representatives? Nah. Why bother? After all, are they gonna stand up and do whatever is asked of them by leadership? Probably not. For one thing, the UFT high school reps haven't signed loyalty oaths and won't stand for whatever they're told, like mayoral control, charter schools, junk science ratings, and substandard contracts.

Here's what they stand for--When the high school Executive Board reps got in, they pushed for a resolution against abusive administrators. Alas, that was not acceptable to leadership, which likened it to a scatter gun and stated that administrators were represented by union and therefore deserved to be respected. Oddly, when teachers are brought up on false or ridiculous charges, the administrators bringing said charges never seem to say, "Gee, they're represented by union like me. Maybe I shouldn't place letters in their files or try to fire them for no reason."

So we're nicer than they are. And when we try to enforce existing class size regulations on our contract, we're told we've sacrificed pay to get them there. That's an interesting point, given it happened fifty years ago and most of us were in diapers if even alive at that time. More interesting is the fact that the resolution didn't ask for anything more than enforcing the UFT contract and state law.

Then there was a resolution that we look closely at the Netflix documentary 13th and examine the effect that has on Americans of color in the United States. Though most at the Executive Board hadn't even seen the documentary, that was voted down. They weren't even able to honor the modest request of placing an article about it in NY Teacher.

It's important, if you aren't going to do the whole democracy thing, to marginalize people who don't share your agenda. Thus Bernie supporters are wild-eyed lunatics, Hillary supporters can go to hell, and 20,000 high school teachers, more than the entire Philadelphia teacher union, should shut up and sit down.

After all, we're gonna do another round of Union Loud and Proud, which seems to entail placing a logo on UFT email, and that oughta be good enough for anyone.

NYC Schools Reduced to Begging for Air Conditioning

It's 2017, in case it's escaped your attention, and city schools are still not universally air-conditioned. My building is better than most, in that it's largely air conditioned, but as anyone who works in a city school can attest, things break, and they aren't always fixed instantly. Last year the AC in my classroom dropped dead sometime late spring, and I remember a particularly miserable day that I was observed. I didn't fare all that badly, but I'm absolutely certain the lesson would've gone badly if the kids and I were not so miserable in the heat.

And it's not really about being observed or not. NYC has made big noises about being putting, "Children First, Always." The fact is you don't do that by placing kids in miserable learning conditions. When I lived in a non-air conditioned apartment I remember retreating to the library to do work, simply because it had AC. In fact, when Chancellor Carmen Fariña wanted to rationalize keeping schools open during a massive snowstorm, she cited the fact that Macy's was open. Well, if we're gonna go by what Macy's does, it probably isn't working out that well, since they just closed 68 stores and fired 10,000 people. Aside from that, there's no way Macy's would open on a summer day without AC.

The principal of Fashion High School is now running a GoFundMe campaign to get air conditioners for his school. I have to applaud his efforts. He's really showing concern for not only the kids he represents, but also his staff. There's no way that kids can learn efficiently, or teachers can teach efficiently when it's 98 degrees in the classroom. There are only so many articles of clothing you can take off, roll up or loosen, and then you're pretty much stuck wishing you were anywhere but here. How you are "highly effective" under those conditions is a mystery to me.

But as laudable as the principal's efforts are, if I were Carmen Fariña, I'd be utterly humiliated. This principal's efforts are her failure. Fariña can talk until she's blue in the face about how much she cares about schoolchildren, but leaving something like this out there in the public eye is a huge embarrassment. It would be for me, anyway. I mean, it's very nice that she takes a group of seven or eight kids to a museum somewhere and discusses fine art with them. I'd be delighted to do that. Of course, it's not quite as easy for a lowly teacher like me to get away with a small group to a place like that. To portray that as typical in NYC is absurd.

More likely you're in some sweltering classroom with 34 kids, trying desperately to keep them alert and stay alert yourself. In fact, that's where I found myself this September, except I had 40 kids rather than 34. Our AC was replaced, in fact, and our class was reduced to contractual limits, but there are still 42 oversized classes in my school, at last count, and new kids are coming in each and every day.

It's nice that Fariña can bring a few kids to a museum. That's great for those kids. But in terms of big picture, NYC still has the largest class sizes in the state of New York, and they haven't been changed in fifty years. Also, just about everyplace is air-conditioned now except New York City schools. Principals ought not to have to take to funding campaigns for basic necessities, and if anyone at Tweed thinks this represents putting children first, second, or anyplace but last, they need to have their heads examined, and not by a DOE doctor either.

Thanks to Mike Schirtzer