Mediocrity Rules

 Sometimes I think we need to teach our students what logical fallacy is. Lately I think that more and more. I often find myself debating with adults who quickly resort to ad hominem and strawman arguments. I'm really amazed that adults, teachers, and union leaders jump to name calling and nonsense so quickly.

It's like junior high school all over again. I thought I was past all the rank out sessions, but I'm not, evidently. As life is short, I cut these conversations as quickly as I possibly can.

But politics is kind of a third rail.I've gotten a lot of flack about my decision not to vote for Hillary. Thus far, no one's really addressed my reasons, but rather I've been accused of supporting Trump via my lack of support for his opponent. That's simply ridiculous, as is Trump. Trump is amoral and reprehensible, for my money absolutely unacceptable. On the other hand, I've long felt a whole lot of GOP pols were pretty much the same as Trump, but found little weasel words to avoid saying outright what Trump does. Trump shouts the bigotry other Republicans know to only hint at.

Were I in Ohio or Florida I'd think twice about it, but if Hillary's NY race is competitive enough that she needs my vote, chances are she's lost anyway. Our Electoral College system is bizarre and undemocratic, and votes in my state are just not worth that much.

I'm a public education advocate, and if you want my vote you'd better either share that priority or be so good on everything else that I'm willing to overlook it (as was Bernie Sanders). I'm sorry that people are so upset about this, and I fully expect UFT to run an all-out, no-holds barred push for Hillary over the next few months. I believe that Hillary will likely not be as awful as Trump, but I fail to understand why we didn't extract significant concessions before going all in.

I voted for Barack Obama in 2008, he broke my heart, and I made a personal decision not to vote for reforminess anymore. When Cuomo ran on a platform promising to go after unions, I voted for Green Howie Hawkins. In 2012, I voted for Green Jill Stein for President, and I expect to do so again in November.

But I'm really shocked at some of the pushback I've gotten lately. A local union President from somewhere or other got on my Facebook page and called me names. That's not argument at all. I mean, if you can show me that Hillary will really work for us, you might persuade me. Personal insults are the province of people bereft of ideas, and we need to do better. You know, we're teachers, role models. Are we raising our children to thoughtlessly insult one another?

That's not the first time I've heard such nonsense, and I'm sure it won't be the last. Though there are a handful of people I really respect in leadership, I'm not seeing that as a rule. I have no problem engaging people, and I respect people's opinions. What amazes me is people approaching me with no argument whatsoever and absolute conviction that they are right. Why are they right? Well, they went to a meeting and someone told them this was right, and that's good enough for them. How can they be like that?

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. ~Upton Sinclair

When people tell me what a threat Trump is I understand. He would be an awful President, full of bluster and baseless ideas. And those who follow him blindly are really dangerous, as they could follow him into some pretty bad places. I found it ironic that someone, in defense of Hillary, would call me a "loser," as that's what Trump calls everyone and anyone who disagrees with him. What does that even mean anymore?

But I wonder how a leader of teachers can skate by with an inability to muster an argument that rises above juvenile name-calling. What does that say about us? I've met a whole lot of chapter leaders who got the job simply because no one else wanted it. I see places where the gig appears to be passed around like a hot potato. That's kind of understandable. Who's crazy enough to argue with the principal?  But someone has to do it.

Why can't we get good people? There are reasons, of course. One is that our system kind of encourages and perpetuates mediocrity. I mean, UFT leadership takes a stand, sort of. They supported mayoral control. When it came up for renewal, they asked for changes, didn't get them, and then supported it anyway. Now Mulgrew says they support it, but not as is. What does that even mean? If they don't support it as is, why the hell did they support it ever?

Leadership sort of sits on the fence on testing. Mulgrew's gonna punch all our faces out if we don't support Common Core, but they complain about the rollout, which is the same nonsense Cuomo rationalizes it with. They're against excessive testing, but when opt-out actually does something about it, they spout the same crap as Reformy John King. When opt-out places fear into the alleged heart of the Cuomo, and inspires him to make a few superficial changes, they declare it a victory (and take credit). But as they declare absolutely everything a victory, that's got kind of a hollow ring.

They attack everyone and anyone who disagrees with them. If they can't think of a good argument, they dredge the bottom of the barrel, and spit out whatever they come up with. Who cares if it's accurate or not? Anyone who's signed a loyalty oath will believe it or lose their free trip to Schenectady next year. Or maybe an after school gig. So they don't contradict it, and just as likely don't even bother to think about it.

What is the quality of representation you get when you hire people who won't and possibly even can't think? What is the quality of representation you get when no one is allowed to question the Great and Powerful Oz, and everyone just runs around pretending how mysterious he is?

Sadly, you get what we've got now. You get some very good people, and a lot of others who blindly do as told and fully expect never to have to explain it. When put in uncomfortable positions, they blurt out whatever nonsense comes into their heads.

If you read this blog I have to assume you know that we, teachers, are under assault. We are the last vestige of vibrant unionism in these United States and as such folks hate us. Some of those folks are Eli Broad and the Walmart family, and they donate heavily to candidate Hillary Clinton. Well, if Hillary is so great for teachers, why the hell are the reformies-in-chief donating to her?

Hey, if you want to vote for Hillary, go right ahead. I won't call you names. But if you want to be a leader, if you aim to persuade, you'd better be prepared to stand up and explain why you do what you do. There are certainly plenty of capable people. But we're not gonna inspire them to work with us if we're represented by those who behave like 12-year-olds.

Mulgrew on Evaluation--Logical Fallacy, Obfuscation, and Omission

Michael Mulgrew is President of the United Federation of Teachers so it's only fair to assume he speaks for leadership. Despite his constant talk of victory in Cuomo's agreement to hold off using Common Core results for teacher evaluation, teachers are still going to be judged by junk science. The only difference is which tests on which we base said junk science.

Informed people, like Diane Ravitch, reject junk science. The American Statistical Association found that teachers account for only 1-14% of student scores. I'd say those who choose to ignore that are akin to climate change deniers. Yet when UFT President Michael Mulgrew is faced with objections to the new 50% junk science system, he asks if teachers want to go back to principals making choices.  In fact, that's a black and white fallacy, assuming there is only one alternative to Cuomo's 50% plan, the one for which Mulgrew thanked the Heavy Hearts Assembly. Furthermore, it's an appeal to fear, another logical fallacy. It reminds me of nothing more than Orwell's Squealer asking the animals whether they wanted Jones to come back.

This was an effective argument at the Delegate Assembly, where the overwhelming majority had signed the loyalty oath, agreeing to follow the leader no matter what. But a thinking person has to reject the argument, and not simply because it's a logical fallacy. First of all, if you accept the ASA's findings (as opposed to Cuomo's), you have to concede that this leaves half your rating up to pure chance. While it's possible the junk science could bring your rating up, it's equally possible it could drag you down. And while Mulgrew can point to people who were saved by junk science, I know people who were sunk by it. In fact one such teacher, Shari Lederman,  has literally placed junk science on trial. A colleague of mine likens depending on junk science to suggesting you go ahead and take up smoking, because maybe you won't get cancer.

More importantly, Mulgrew neglects to consider or acknowledge the flip side of his APPR agreement--the DOE no longer needs to prove teacher incompetence in these cases. Under the current agreement, if the UFT rat squad says you suck, you have to prove you are NOT incompetent. That's a huge burden of proof, one teachers are unlikely to overcome. So while Mulgrew can argue there are fewer teachers with twin bad ratings, the consequences they now face are far more dire than before. That there are fewer facing double negative rating does not mean there will be fewer people facing 3020a, or fewer who actually lose their jobs.

Mulgrew can call those of us who oppose him Chicken Little. He can say we're hysterical and illogical. He can call us names. But I know people directly affected by the APPR law he boasted about negotiating. I know the 50% Heavy Hearts Law was designed specifically to fire more teachers, and I know the notion of Firing Our Way to the Top is essentially ludicrous. The best predictor of test scores are income and degree of special needs, and as long as the politicians blame schools and teachers for such things we are not going to fix the perceived problems with test scores.

It's a shame we haven't got a President who addresses this head on. Ours, in fact, seems to prefer his head in the sand.

NY State's Unity Caucus Launches a Despicable Attack Against PJSTA President Beth Dimino

NYS Unity Caucus, of course, is the one that's behind Revive NYSUT. This is the Caucus that promised to oppose Common Core and Cuomo. Yet Karen Magee, pictured at left, offered the logical fallacy that it was CCSS or chaos at an AFT convention. That's called a black and white fallacy, insinuating that there are only two possiblities when there are, in fact, many more. Another Revive lie, also in the picture, was its claim to be against Cuomo. Revive/ Unity failed to oppose him not only in two primaries featuring the incredible Zephyr Teachout, but also in the general election.

Revive was a coup in NYSUT that was supported by Michael Mulgrew and his loyalty oath signing UFT Unity Caucus. UFT is by far the largest group in NYSUT and is pretty much the tail that wags the dog.

The NYS Unity blog is a largely self-congratulating tool, a piece in its ineffectual social media arsenal. It doesn't publish much, but just attacked my friend PJSTA President Beth Dimino. It is not widely read, and I'd never seen it until someone sent me the link. I'm not going to link or send traffic to it, but I will respond to it. Let's begin with the first sentence:

It is with great regret that we feel compelled to respond to a recent yet familiar rant by Beth Dimino, Chair of the Stronger Together Caucus and President of the Port Jefferson Station Teachers Association on Facebook. 

First of all, this is classic passive aggressiveness. We're sorry, but.... Everyone knows that once you say "but," you can disregard everything that's come before it. If they regretted it so much they would not say it. A claim like that is plainly disingenuous.

The UNITY Caucus has taken the high road for a year and a half but eventually, enough is enough.

I'm not particularly sure what the high road is for Unity Caucus. This smells like the same writer who did a similar hatchet job on me, full of nonsensical strawman assertions. In fact, AFT President Randi Weingarten thought that was just fine, and linked to it on Twitter.  She removed the link after I pointed out that the writer, by falsely calling me a part time teacher and part time unionist, managed to insult not only me, but also every UFT chapter leader in the city.  

I will spare you some of the invective, but this piece revolves around her refusal to pay into VOTE-COPE, known in NYC simply as COPE. This is the political fund used by NYSUT and UFT. It is, in fact, completely optional. There are things, most obviously NYSUT's failure to oppose Cuomo, and its dominance by folks who mistake logical fallacy for argument, that cause people like Beth (and me) to question their judgment. Here's more from Unity:

By publicly encouraging others to defund VOTE-COPE on Facebook, “Go into school tomorrow and reduce your VOTE-COPE contributions to $0.00!” she is feeding conservative legislators the ammunition they need to pull our union apart.

First of all, it wasn't Beth Dimino who gave tens of thousands of dollars to Senator Flanagan, who has helped enable the reforminess now making NYSUT members miserable statewide. It wasn't Beth Dimino who supported Senator Serphin Maltese, who helped break two Catholic school unions. Nor was it Beth Dimino who supported George Pataki, who thanked us by vetoing improvements to the Taylor Law. No, that was our COPE money. 

Some might say she should consider joining in with the Koch brothers and other right winged-politicians if her goal is to kill the union.

Let's be clear--this writer just said that, while attempting to sugar-coat the statement with "Some might say." Let's further examine the logical fallacy inherent in this sentence. Obviously, there's that strawman. Beth Dimino is one of the most passionate unionists I've ever met. The notion that she wants to kill union is preposterous, a pure concoction of the Unity writer. Secondly, by invoking the Koch Brothers, there's guilt by association, another logical fallacy. 

Let's be further clear that there is a movement to kill union and it is in no way supported by Beth Dimino. It is enabled, however, by our history of concession to reforminess. Look at the UFT 2005 Contract. Look at Michael Mulgrew helping to craft the APPR law. Look at him praising the Heavy Hearts legislature for making it worse. Look at Bill Gates addressing the AFT Convention. And those are just a few of the low lights.

When you cannot muster a proactive argument, logical fallacy is one way to go. What's truly pathetic is that this is what our leadership chooses to put forth as their voice. Among teachers, there are quite a few thinkers, quite a few creative and passionate souls. Judging from what passes for argument among leadership, and how they choose to treat people who speak their minds, they haven't got the remotest notion what a creative and passionate thinker even is.

Related: PJSTA defends its President. 

Related: ICE-UFT blog