PROSE and Cons Part 2--Return of the Strawman

I had no idea the PROSE programs entailed enabling higher class sizes until the other day when Leonie Haimson tweeted it to Randi Weingarten. Leo Casey is consistently attentive to and protective of Randi, and I told Leonie he would claim she opposed teacher empowerment. I knew this because when my friend Julie Cavanagh opposed the latest substandard UFT Contract, that was exactly what he told her.

A few hours later, voila!

@leoniehaimson @TeacherArthurG @pfh1964 @lanecindy1234 @rweingarten Shame that u attack PROSE that empowers teachers to make positive change

— Leo Casey (@LeoECasey) July 19, 2015

When you misrepresent your opponent's argument, that's called a strawman fallacy. Leonie did not, in fact, say teachers shouldn't be empowered. Nor did Julie. When you oppose a contract containing an agreement for two-tier due process, when you oppose an agreement to wait an extra decade for the raise most unions got before 2010, when you disagree that ATRs should be fired for missing two interviews about which they may or may not be aware, it doesn't mean you oppose teacher empowerment. Who wants to be empowered in that fashion? Not me.

I certainly support teacher empowerment. As far as class size, it would be great to be able to dictate smaller class sizes. Because of what I teach, I've had classes ranging from 15 to the contractual max. In fact, I've had classes up to 50 in ESL, back when I was new and didn't know any better. I've also taught classes of 50 as a music teacher. I know about big classes, and I know about small classes. Class size matters.

Leonie Haimson also thinks class size matters, which is why she's an advocate for public school parents and students. That's pretty much her job. She wanted to know why the School Leadership Team of parents, admin, teachers and students didn't get a vote.

@leoniehaimson @pfh1964 @TeacherArthurG @lanecindy1234 @rweingarten @UFT Just curious Is there one real parent in school who has criticized?

— Leo Casey (@LeoECasey) July 19, 2015

This is pretty interesting. Just last week, Leo was angry at those of us who opposed the Hillary nomination. There was a scientific survey, he said, and we were questioning the results. I still haven't seen the survey, or the pool from which it was given, but how dare I? This week things were different. The fact is, parents do not get a vote on SBOs, be they PROSE or otherwise.

Leo harped on this quite a bit. Evidently, if there is a poll or a vote, you are not to question it. That's the way it is. If you don't accept it, well, you think only you and your friends should make the decision and you therefore don't believe in democracy. If there is not a poll or a vote, however, it's on you to actually find out how people feel, all by yourself.  The standing assumption, evidently, is UFT leadership is always right no matter what. But you know what? There was a vote. In fact, there were several, and they all said the same thing.

.@LeoECasey @TeacherArthurG @pfh1 @rweingarten reducing class size #1 priority of NYC parents in DOE surveys; sorry if @UFT doesn't agree

— leonie haimson (@leoniehaimson) July 19, 2015

Now you could assume, from what I say, that I oppose SBOs. Someone did.

There's one in my school this year. I'm pleased to tell you it passed at 97%. @rweingarten @UFT

— Arthur Goldstein (@TeacherArthurG) July 19, 2015

I most certainly do not oppose SBOs. Nor do I oppose teacher empowerment. Like Leonie, I oppose unreasonably large class sizes. If you want to empower teachers, give them the option to have smaller class sizes, even if the city has to pay for it. Don't tell me the only way to reduce what is already the highest class size in the state for some is to dump others into lecture-style classes. Don't tell me that some kids need attention and others do not.

Here's a fact--class size limits have remained the same in NYC for over 50 years, and class sizes themselves have been rising for 8 years. They are at a 15-year high in early grades. While UFT leadership devotes valuable lip service to it from time to time, they have done absolutely nothing to change it. I think some parts of the contract ought not to be messed with. In particular, class size ought to be inviolate. It's too high already.

Looking over some of these PROSE proposals, I note that it may be the teacher's option to teach oversized classes. That is simply a terrible idea. Can you imagine being a probationary teacher and having the principal ask you whether or not you want to teach an oversized class? What are you gonna say? In fact, given the terror many of us feel at the junk science evaluation system, which tenured teacher wants to face that?

There is a good reason why the chapter leader is given the task of grieving oversized classes. Once, I filed a grievance over them, and an administrator approached me. She said she asked Mr. Smith which kid he wanted removed from his class, and he said he wanted all of them to stay. What should she do? I told her it was not my problem, and it was not Mr. Smith's problem either. She overloaded the class, and it was on her to fix it.

When the chapter leader takes care of it, you don't have to pick which kid leaves your class. And you can't be made to feel guilty about it. Furthermore, you don't have to worry about the principal asking you for a waiver so he can dump extra kids in your class. You don't need to be put in the position of having to turn down his request to add students to what is already the highest class size in NY State.

Make no mistake--that is teacher empowerment. Allowing for exceptions to an already inadequate rule is precisely the opposite.

The Looney Tunes of Educational Deformity

So, what's your biggest surprise and saddest realization in this era of educational deformity?  Has it been that the likes of Michelle Rhee blame teachers for poverty in America?  Or, that a lady who taped students' mouths shut to the point of bleeding could become a corporate-backed spokeswoman for educational "reform"?  Has it been that schools--which need to be places of nurture and comfort for the well-being of society--have turned into engines of stress, demoralizing students and turning teachers from the profession.

Has it been that over-brained technocrats concoct supposedly scientific formulas to measure teachers based on student test scores--which common sense tells us is nonsense?  Has it been that test companies profit immensely by trying to sell the idea that test scores are minorities' tickets to freedom?  Or, that two-faced "reformers" in ivory towers refuse to send their kids to schools that preach their own gospel?  Is it that some people, short on humanity, think music, art and physical ed. should be slashed to make room for more test prep?

In my mind, although all of these things bother me immensely, the biggest surprise, and the saddest realization, is that, too many times, my Union has been a part of the problem.  Instead of working exclusively for the interests of my profession, at critical junctures, it has abandoned me and my peers.  It oversaw the creation of a two-tier system by which older teachers, working with underprivileged kids might become long-term ATRs, scapegoats writ large.  It set up its own charters with big help from the Broad Foundation and Steve Barr, even engaging, itself, in a hostile co-location.  It championed Bill Gates and his Common Core.  It originally gave us twenty-two domains from hell to supposedly "gum up" all of our works, complemented by test-based junk science.  And, it staunchly defends the annual testing that sucks so much joy out of teaching and learning. Our Union seems an entity separate from teachers with interests which differ markedly at times from our own.

But with a system set up so the ruling party in the U.F.T., Unity, doesn't need to please its rank and file, why would anyone expect anything different?  Unity has guaranteed its stranglehold on power by blatant and ongoing manipulation of the political process.  When high-school teachers elected a non-Unity rep, Unity changed the rules to make the position at large.  When fear set in that chapter leaders might elect non-Unity district reps., the position became an appointment.  In anticipation of the 2013 elections, Unity raised the weight of retiree votes--when most unions do not allow retirees to vote at all.  There is nothing subtle here.  If I am wrong or unfair in these statements, someone please put me right.  I would like nothing more.  It's depressing.

Instead of worrying about the fact that only eighteen percent of active members voted in 2013, Unity rejoiced in its victory.  Retirees made up 52% of the total vote.  In a winner-take-all system, Unity squelches some of the City's most intelligent, but independent-thinking pro-Union voices.  It squelches the voices of smaller locals on Long Island and upstate.  It squelches voices through its sway in NYSUT and the AFT.

When 750-800 Unity members all promise to vote the same way for their meal ticket, specifically as told, even if not told the specifics of what they're voting for, you can join Leo Casey in calling it "parliamentary democracy" (surely not a loyalty oath, for that term is offensive to leadership!) or you can see it symptomatic of a potentially fatal sickness.  I see it as the latter.

So, what will the Unity "yes" men and women say if the Supreme Court rules against Unions in the Friedrichs case?  What will they say when so many of the rank and file no longer think it worthwhile to pay their salaries--and, that independent opposition is among the few who truly understand the importance of a Union?

What will those who banked on advancing themselves, "professionally and politically," out of the classroom via their Union say?  What will all those people who fervently defend a patently non-representative system say when it's farewell to their double-pensioned jobs with pretty perks?  It will be full speed ahead with the propaganda engines, but they'll probably fail to realize that they--or the system they upheld--were part of the problem.  They'll probably fail to realize that they failed to adequately represent their constituency.  They'll probably fail to realize that a great many people fail to feel any connection with them or feel any particular fondness.  They'll probably fail to realize that "parliamentary democracy," Unity-style, hasn't worked.  Sadly, it may be too late for Unionism.

PROSE and Cons

There's a lot of talk about the UFT PROSE model being utliized nationwide. This particular talking point is favored by AFT President Randi Weingarten lately. Evidently it's being put forth as an alternative to charter schools. Charters tend not to be unionized, and thus put a dent in union coffers. Maybe PROSE is a pro-union alternative. I was pretty surprised to see this, though, this morning.

Sadly @rweingarten biggest UFT- hyped "innovation" in PROSE schools: increasing class size #notgoodforkids

— leonie haimson (@leoniehaimson) July 19, 2015

Is it an improvement when our class size limits, already the highest in the state, are disregarded for the sake of "innovation?" I'm not persuaded. For one thing, there are little schools with less than noticeable union presence. A principal could pressure a weak chapter leader (if there even is one), and members could vote as told. I can't envision any benefit in oversized classes for kids, but for principals it could be a bonanza. If one teacher can teach 70 students, like good ol' Mikey Bloomberg wanted, that's one teacher the principal doesn't have to hire. There's tens of thousands for that fact-finding mission to Oahu.

But Weingarten defends the process:

Is there opt-out process for parents who don't find huge class sizes in kids' best interest? @rweingarten @leoniehaimson @UFT @AFTunion

— Arthur Goldstein (@TeacherArthurG) July 19, 2015

I haven't received a response yet. Will keep you posted if that changes. I'm a public school parent, and I can tell you that I absolutely don't want my kid or any kid in an oversized class. The fact is the UFT Contract is the only instrument that governs class size in NYC. I'm a strong believer that our class sizes are already too large, and there is no way I would sign off on a PROSE plan to make them larger.

I've seen a few PROSE school teachers at the UFT DA, but I honestly haven't got a whole lot of detail as to what their programs entail. I'm sure there are things we could do better, but I can't see at all how raising class size enables that. And now that I know increased class size is a factor in PROSE, I have to wonder what other nonsense this program is allowing.

In our school, we've used SBO votes to enable PD and teacher inquiry teams. They have passed overwhelmingly. I'm not 100% certain they will make us a better school, and I'm not 100% certain they will help kids. But I'm absolutely sure they will do no harm.

It would be nice to know how PROSE schools explain larger class sizes as beneficial to kids. I can't imagine.

Can you?

Turning a Building Around

Thanks to Andrew Cuomo and his Heavy Hearts Assembly, a whole lot of schools in NY State are looking down the barrel of receivership, i.e. state takeover. In a year or two, if Chancellor Fariña and her counterparts can't make test scores and graduation rates go up, Governor Andy and his hedge fund BFFs can turn over school leadership to Eva Moskowitz, or whoever they feel like.

I live right next to Roosevelt, where state takeover has been failing pretty much forever.  But why bother with history when all your programs are based on ignoring not only that, but also research and practice? If poor test scores are invariably aligned with poverty and high needs, why not ignore that utterly and blame the teachers? That's what newly-minted Commissioner MaryEllen Elia has done, blathering some hogwash about how these schools have been failing children for decades.

Here's the thing--there are ways to improve test scores. Eva Moskowitz and her corporate charter counterparts have one. First, you don't take the same kids the public schools do. You make extra steps to gain entrance. You make school a living misery, focused almost solely on tests. Then you get rid of those who don't measure up, and don't bother replacing them. Then you make a lot of noise about "no excuses" and vehemently deny the playing field is rigged.

Another route to school improvement is GW Bush's preferred methodology--the "Texas Miracle." Basically you just cook the books and base a national education program on fraud.  Or you could always erase to the top. We collectively assume programs like GW's and Eva's are models, things to be  admired and replicated. That, in fact, is why my neighbors, schools like Van Buren, Grover Cleveland and John Adams, are facing a very uncertain future.

In the two city schools facing these draconian measures this year, more than half the staff won't be returning. In an agreement with the city, these educators will get jobs elsewhere. I think those who left did a smart thing. They've avoided the ATR, and they've also avoided sitting around in targeted schools with guns to their heads. In fact the principal of Boys and Girls has so little confidence in his own ability to accomplish the turnaround, he took a big old bonus regardless of consequence and made a deal to be able to return to his old school if things go south.

I've heard Mulgrew say at the DA several times that we need to succeed in this venture. I certainly hope we do, but there are issues here that bear our attention. The prime issue is that there is no basis whatsoever to assume we will succeed. We cannot cherry pick, we cannot counsel kids out, and we cannot leave slots open as kids leave. It's particularly absurd to assume we're gonna reverse the trajectory of kids who've been attending school for a decade or more. Moskowitz doesn't just take on high school kids. In fact, the history of "miracles" has to do almost entirely with either outright fraud or using selected kids and comparing them to the population at large.

Until and unless we address poverty, the underlying cause of a whole lot of our problems, that isn't going to change. In a few years, they can fire me as an ESL teacher, but that still won't mean newcomers will arrive speaking perfect English. They can close or take over my school, but that won't mean the severely disabled kids we enroll (unlike Moskowitz and even most public schools) are gonna ace the Physics Regents.

The underlying assumption, that state tests are the only measure of what kids achieve, is ridiculous. For one thing, I'm no genius, and my tests are a whole lot better than state tests. My tests are written by me, in response to the needs of my kids. Conversely, the NYSESLAT, on which I will be rated, is designed to test Common Core skills. My kids need to learn English before they can deal with this nonsense, and the geniuses who run the country have just denied them extra time to do that. Bear in mind that the extra time was still not nearly enough, but better than nothing.

I'm very sorry to say that our schools are being set up for failure. It is an egregious error on the part of the UFT to accept all the false assumptions about our kids and schools and say we're gonna prove them wrong. The way to prove them wrong, in fact, is not to step on their rigged playing field, accept their rules, and hope for the best. We prove them wrong by doing our job, by teaching America.

America needs to learn that we do a whole lot more than prepare kids for tests over which we have no control. America needs to learn that, while MaryEllen Elia may indeed believe life is a big test, she has failed it by making such idiotic pronouncements. America needs to learn that the highly regarded American Statistical Association says that not only do teachers affect test scores by a factor of 1-14%, but that undue focus on test scores actually impedes us from helping kids, the most important thing we do. American needs to learn that the best predictor of college readiness is not the arbitrary crap the geniuses in Albany dream up, but rather teacher-issued grades.

There are, in fact, kids who do poorly on tests who can succeed because they get along well with others. There are some who get excellent test scores but who aren't really very good students.  Life is not, in fact, a test, and we don't spend most of our time figuring out which dot to blacken. Life is messy, people have feelings, emotions, and desires, and teachers who ignore them are not likely to be successful.

It was an egregious error for the Heavy Hearts to agree to Cuomo's draconian plan to fail our public schools. Worse still was UFT President Michael Mulgrew's thank you note for having done so. Whoever wrote that for him should be fired. We're in a very rough place, and we have no one but ourselves to blame.

Staking our reputation on doing what has never been done anywhere is not the wisest thing to do. Enabling the government to shirk its responsibility to the neediest of students is irresponsible on our part. We need to do better, not only for our own sake, but also for the sake of the children we are charged to serve.

You can replace the teachers and principal, but they're not the ones who need help. The kids need help, and they're not, in fact, the ones who are failing. It is us, their caretakers, who are failing, by ignoring their problems, studiously pretending they don't exist, and blaming their teachers and schools. 

Getting Made

I got dressed. I wore my best suit, with the cufflinks I inherited from my grandfather. I shined my shoes, but they didn't look good enough, so I shined them again. I kept fussing with my tie, making sure it looked good. Everything had to be perfect.

The car came at exactly 9. Not 8:59. not 9:01. I was at the door. I was pretty nervous.

"Remember what we talked about, kid?" asked Uncle Paulie, who was sponsoring me.

"Yes, Paulie."

"Good. Remember, this is your family now. Are you sure you want to go through with this? Because you can turn around and go back into the house. There will be no hard feelings."

"No, Paulie, I want this more than anything."

"Remember, we keep business to ourselves. No outsiders. When things have to be settled, they're settled in house. Get it, kid?"

"Yes, Paulie."

"Once we do this, there's no turning back. Your mother, your father, your wife, your kids, they are important. But if you have to choose between them and us, who do you choose?"

"I choose you, Uncle Paulie."

"Remember, you will be in a special brotherhood now. When you have troubles, they will be our troubles. And when you have enemies, they will become our enemies. And then they will fear you."

"I understand, Paulie."

"Now we are your people. You will always have a family of friends. We will always go to the best places, eat the best food, and do the best things.  But you will never talk about our thing to outsiders."

"I understand, Paulie."

We entered the TGIF. There was Michael, my Godfather, with the paper in his hand. I signed it.

"Have a mozzarella stick," said Paulie.

Beware the Strawman

I frequently see ridiculous arguments, and sometimes they come from Leo Casey, evidently the intellectual colossus of our union, or AFT, or whoever it is he works for these days. For years I watched him on Edwize as he told us in lengthy articles why Carol Burris was wrong, why junk science APPR wasn't so bad, why the 2005 contract was worth voting for, why its opponents didn't believe in democracy, or why whatever leadership said was right, even if they blatantly contradict themselves.

It won't surprise you that I often disagreed with him, seeing odd leaps of logic. But I didn't have precise names for them until my young nephew offered me a brief lesson on logical fallacies. I then began to note how frequently I saw them in Casey's rationales of outrageous leadership decisions. A few heated conversations on Twitter over the AFT decision to endorse Hillary Clinton reminded me. I'll provide you with some samples.

@MOREcaucusNYC That's your problem: you think AFT should listen to 25 of you, not 1.6 million members.

— Leo Casey (@LeoECasey) July 11, 2015

This is a textbook strawman argument. It's a logical fallacy, and you ought not to be fooled by it.

First of all, Casey has no idea how many members there are in MORE, let alone how many supporters they have. The fact is they got a whole lot more votes than that in the last election.  But that's not even the point. Rather than address it, he chooses to put words in their mouths and ridicule rather than engage.

MORE never said or even implied that decisions should be made by them alone. In fact the avalanche of opposition, including thousands of negative comments on AFT's Facebook page suggests his assumption is invalid. But it doesn't even matter. A strawman is never a valid argument.

@rubinsteindds @NTampio @mma718 @MOREcaucusNYC You don't want to discuss Common Core, where your position is aligned w/Republican far right.

— Leo Casey (@LeoECasey) July 13, 2015

This condemns those of us who, like Diane Ravitch, disagree with Common Core. It's also another strawman. In fact, Professor Nicholas Tampio, to whom this was addressed, opposes Common Core and has written and spoken extensively about it. Casey offers no discussion of its merits or lack thereof. He simply equates Tampio with others who oppose it. That couples the strawman with "guilt by association," another logical fallacy. The assumption is that you agree with some group we find objectionable, so you are therefore wrong. In this case, Leo Casey is referring to GOP candidates. (Interestingly enough, 40% of those polled by AFT appear to be Republicans, and their opinions were completely disregarded. Therefore, if we accept the assertion that the poll was scientific, fair and random, if 3 out of 4 of the 60% left supported Hillary, it indicates she was supported by 45% of those polled.) It's ridiculous. But why not trot it out again anyway?

Not only is that a strawman, and not an answer, but Nick also specifically stated he opposed GOP. @LeoECasey @NTampio @mma718 @MOREcaucusNYC

— Arthur Goldstein (@TeacherArthurG) July 13, 2015

Even though Tampio had specifically said he didn't agree with GOP candidates, why not suggest he agrees with them anyway? That may be uninformed, or it may be disingenuous, but it's most certainly incorrect, and it's another exercise in the guilt by association fallacy.

@TeacherArthurG @TheJLV Right, insult everyone who disagrees with you.

— Leo Casey (@LeoECasey) July 13, 2015

Another strawman, another logical fallacy. I had responded to an assertion that there was a difference in voices at an AFT convention and on the internet.  Voices that disagree with AFT tend not to attend their conventions. I, for one, was not invited, and had no idea they were even having one. How much money does UFT spend sending loyalty oath signers to conventions? It must be millions. And while we're on that topic:

@msmoskop @BiancaTanis @nysut @AFTunion Use of pejorative, misleading, & insulting terms like "loyalty oaths" is disrespectful.

— Leo Casey (@LeoECasey) July 13, 2015

You'd better believe it's pejorative, and it's true I have no respect whatsoever for loyalty oaths. But it isn't those of us who call the loyalty oath a loyalty oath who are misleading. It is, in fact, the people who fail to notify us of its existence, let alone what it is or what it means.

Chapter leaders are elected to represent their members, not Leo Casey, not Michael Mulgrew and not their Unity Caucus. Most members have no idea their chapter leaders have agreed to vote as told. And the fact is the Unity Caucus has supported VAM, Common Core, and a multitude of things that negatively affect students and teachers. They can defend them all day long, but they most certainly contribute to the cynicism and despair of membership, as reflected in our miserable voter turnout. I vote all the time because I can't help myself, but members have asked me to my face why they should bother voting when the fix is in.

So what do you do if you don't like the decisions leadership makes for you?

@msmoskop @BiancaTanis @nysut @AFTunion and join a different organization or not be part of any organization.

— Leo Casey (@LeoECasey) July 13, 2015

I was pretty shocked by that, particularly as we are facing a decision by SCOTUS that may allow people to withhold dues altogether. I interpreted that to mean Casey was suggesting we leave the union. But Megan saw it otherwise.

@msmoskop @patsfan_in_pgh @AFTunion Thank you for correcting misrepresentation of what I said.

— Leo Casey (@LeoECasey) July 14, 2015

It's nice that Megan, a member of the MORE group Casey ridiculed and misrepresented, was thoughtful enough to clarify for him. Would that he had the same courtesy for her and others. But even given this interpretation, his answer is disingenuous and misleading. The fact is the Unity Caucus is an elite, invitation only group. You must be sponsored by a member to join. So while there are other choices, the choice to join the caucus that makes all the decisions for our union is open only to a very small minority.

It's Time to Unite

That's the song I'm hearing now from Unity members. We are, in fact, facing a dire threat. The Friedrichs suit can result in the decimation, if not the destruction, of public sector unions nationwide. I strenuously oppose this, as do most people of my acquaintance. If possible, I will certainly work with union leadership to prevent this.

But with the premature Hillary nomination, a lot of us have a lot to say about the less-than-democratic nature of union elections. Bernie Sanders speaks to us. He stands up for working people, and does not take money from corporations who suppress and silence us. He hits almost every bell, for me at least. I've donated to his campaign, and will do what I can for him. And I will not be silent on AFT, an organization to which I pay dues but have no vote.

The line I'm getting, as usual, is sit down and shut up. And that, frankly, is par for the course. You're opposing us, and the real enemy is Giuliani. You're opposing us, and the real enemy is Bloomberg. You're opposing us, and the real enemy is Cuomo. You're opposing us, and the real enemy is the Supreme Court.

There is, evidently, never a good time to oppose leadership. And there are mechanisms in place to ensure very few voices creep into heavily rigged processes and elections. On the ground, of course, there are hundreds of chapter leaders, most of whom have signed loyalty oaths to UFT Unity. Though their jobs ostensibly entail representing membership, they vote as they are told by leadership. For this, they are given duespayer-funded trips to NYSUT and AFT conventions. This ensures that 100% of UFT votes in NYSUT and AFT are controlled by leadership.

If you don't support Common Core, for example, not only do you get no representation in NYSUT or AFT, but also the UFT President wants to punch your face and push it in the dirt.

This is insidious. It goes further, as officer positions are at large, so that not only elementary school teachers, but also retirees help high school teachers select a VP. And like the Hillary nomination in which we had no choice and no voice, this is reflective of an absolute disregard for democracy. It's a fundamental problem, and it's no coincidence that over 80% of working teachers fail to find voting in union elections worth their time.

In fact, it is time to unite. It is time to unite against the Supreme Court decimating public sector union. I will help. I always support leadership when they're right. I oppose them when they fail to oppose Cuomo, say, at election time. It's disingenuous for them to say otherwise, and waiting until he was actually attacking us to speak up was a miscalculation by any standard. One of many, actually.

Who remembers the parade of candidates UFT endorsed, leading up to Bloomberg's first term in office? Who remembers their failure to oppose him, particularly when Thompson came within five points of preventing his third term, the one voters had twice affirmed no one should have? Who remembers their endorsement of Thompson four years too late, and after he told the Daily News editorial board NYC couldn't afford to give teachers the raise most other city unions got?

I am persona non grata in UFT, but that didn't stop them from calling me at least three times to make calls for Thompson. Given his history, and given de Blasio was surging at the time, it was pretty easy to refuse repeatedly.

Leadership is absolutely correct to fight for union, and I certainly hope they come up with a plan better than, say, a Twitter campaign in which they do not participate. 

But it's preposterous for them to tell us to shut up and sit down, that this is not the time to express ourselves. Randi Weingarten is not the union. Michael Mulgrew is not the union. We are the union, and if we don't like it when they shut us out, we need to let them know loudly, insistently, now and forever.

If you don't believe me, just look around at where all this sitting down and shutting up has gotten us.

If Union Dues Are Optional, Shouldn't Taxes Be Optional Too?

I've been giving a lot of thought to the Freidrichs case, which, if we were to lose, would render dues optional for public union members. Basically, if you don't feel like paying your dues, you won't have to. And not only could you keep your precious 1300 bucks, but you could also retain pretty much whatever services the union offers. Why should I pay 1300 bucks for eyeglasses and representation when I could just let some other fool lay out the money?

That, of course, is not the basis of the argument. The argument is that union engages in political activity of which you may not approve. For example, your union might support less work for more pay while you are passionate about more work for less pay. Or maybe they support candidates who don't believe people should work seven days a week. Who knows what awful things the union might support, and how the hell are you supposed to know that your money isn't supporting it? The only fair thing is to let you freeload while everyone else pays.

Well, if that's the rationale, and SCOTUS thinks it's unethical to mix politics with dues, I'm good with it. But they need to be consistent. If, for example, one does not believe in war, one ought not to be compelled to pay for it. I'm not a huge fan of war, and certainly haven't supported the last few I've seen. In fact, there are education programs, like Common Core and Race to the Top, which I oppose fairly vehemently.

One of my biggest issues with the government is taxes. Federal taxes pay for Arne Duncan, and I gotta say, I find him pretty repugnant. For one thing, he's the highest ranking educator in the country, but he isn't even a teacher. For another, though he spends a lot of time imposing policies about public education, he has decided public schools, after years of his stewardship, are no longer good enough for his children.

So, if union dues are optional because I might not believe in what union does, taxes should also be optional.

If I don't have to pay union dues because I don't agree with what the union does, why should I pay taxes when I don't agree with what the government does? It's all about me, isn't it? It's all about persona liberty. If I'm opposed to NCLB, if I'm opposed to Common Core, and if I'm opposed to Arne Duncan representing education, why should I have to support these things?

I'd also like to determine whether or not I support military actions before my tax dollars go to pay for them. As far as I can tell, our last excursion into Iraq was incredibly costly, and not particularly effective in stabilizing the region. Why should I pay for GW's mistakes? In fact, I approved of almost nothing GW did. Can I get a refund?

Because the premise is the same. To tell you the truth, I disagree with a whole lot of things my union leadership does. But I don't see withholding my dues as a solution. This notwithstanding, if the law of the land says I don't have to pay for things I may not support, I don't want to pay federal taxes. And given His Majesty Andrew Cuomo, I don't want to pay state taxes either. I'll continue to pay local taxes because I believe in public education.

Maybe the money I save will make up in some small way for the destruction of my union. Ultimately, though, I doubt it will be enough.

The NYC D.o.E. No Longer Considers This Kid Fat, But Is She Common-Core Fit?

Here's one long overdue...  Gwendolyn Williams made news in May of 2014 when her NYC school "Fitnessgram" came back with the news that she was overweight.  So much for all that running around outside and playing ball with her friends.  In this crazy culture in which only failed metrics can be used to measure teachers and students, it seems public pressure finally forced a scientifically engineered metric to admit its failure.

The City now has a new system under which Gwendolyn would no longer count as unhealthy.  Gone are the previous categories of "underweight," "health weight," "overweight" and "obese."  They have now been replaced by "very low," "healthy fitness zone" and "needs improvement."

The City, moreover, has now decided to do a better job of sealing the Fitnessgrams mailed home.  Gone is the flimsy sticker, easily removable by anyone even remotely interested in ruining his or her self-esteem forever.  Now, the envelopes are more seriously taped, offering an impediment, albeit a minor one.  You might actually need to burn a few more calories to rip it open.

As Gwendolyn's mother, Laura Williams, stated last year, "it was just being labeled overweight that could have been devastating to children."  How many children cried?  How many children were put on a course to eating disorders?  How many will need therapy down the road?  Who is the genius who invented the Fitnessgram and how much does he or she weigh?  How much of that is muscle (shall we count the brain?) and how much of that is flab?

And all this happens at a time when physical education in schools suffers at the hands of tight budgets redirected towards testing.  Precious dollars are wasted on a Common-Core curriculum lined up to be the "Fitnessgram" of the brain.  Sixty-five percent of children were failures in 2014, thanks to cut scores, down from seventy percent the year before.  We are supposedly raising the stupid generation.  Could the metrics possibly be flawed?  No, it must be insipid, lazy teachers and parents, probably fat themselves, over-coddling their overfed kids!  How many more flawed metrics do we need before we understand the damage done to a generation?

From ccworks.org

So, how did Gwendolyn Williams do on her Common Core tests?  I don't know.  But I can tell you how she did on the 2015 "Fitnessgram."  She's among the healthiest of them all.  She and her parents opted out.

Hillary and Randi

 BREAKING--AFT poll turns out to actually be one of those famous 10-foot poles we've all heard so much about. We will keep you updated here at NYC Educator.

Update: AFT link states polling entailed telephone Town Halls and a web survey, a survey I never knew about or saw. They also mention surveys about which no detail whatsoever is provided. They then mention a "scientific poll" but give no evidence to support that. 

@DebraFedyna @rweingarten @AFTunion We polled over 1million members. http://t.co/lME6FH9bDD

— David Quolke (@CTU279) July 11, 2015

How on God's green earth did the AFT survey one million of its 1.6 million members and I don't know a single one who was asked a question?

@TeacherArthurG I think what they meant was that they polled Leo Casey 1,000,000 times

— brian s (@Sashammy) July 12, 2015

For anyone who hasn't heard it yet, the American Federation of Teachers has just endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. Randi Weingarten is tweeting about how they polled members and they prefer her a zillion to one (approximately). Did they ask you? No? Well, they didn't ask me either.

There's a lot of talk on Facebook about how Randi is expecting to be Secretary of Education. Personally, I doubt that will happen. Hillary seems awfully pragmatic to me, and will likely "triangulate," or whatever it is they call it when you don't actually take a position on issues. There is no way Hillary is going to make a national teacher union leader Secretary of Education, and she'd stab Randi in the back in a New York minute. That, IMHO, is as predictable as the AFT endorsement.

It's a great honor to pay dues to the AFT, of course, but it would really be kind of nice if we lowly teachers had a vote, or were asked our opinions in some meaningful way. Instead, the AFT is dominated by NYSUT, NYSUT is dominated by the UFT, and each and every representative of UFT in either body has signed an oath promising to support leadership. Despite this, Punchy Mike Mulgrew has no reservations whatsoever telling people who disagree with heavily orchestrated union endorsements that they don't believe in democracy.

A lot of people are shocked by this endorsement, but it was entirely predictable. Expect to hear it rationalized by things like, "Hillary said this," or, "Hillary said that." This, in fact, was how Obama's second term was rationalized by union leaders. Obama just said he opposed too much testing. Obama just said the world would be better if people were nicer. Or whatever.

Don't believe a word. Obama said when labor was in trouble, he'd find a pair of comfortable shoes and stand with us. Where the hell was Obama when Scott Walker decimated union in Wisconsin? What did he do during the recall vote? Was he looking for those shoes? And why didn't he get union card check as he promised,  one of the primary things he fooled me with the first time he ran?

When they say, "Hillary DID this," or, "Hillary DID that," we'll have something to discuss. What we know now is what Randi Weingarten DID. She endorsed a candidate without asking those of us who pay dues whether or not we thought it was a good idea.

We can do better.

Nothing like lack of transparency, being bullshitted & feeling like "fix was in" to energize the rank and file. https://t.co/utpksO93h5

— Sarah Littman (@realsaramerica) July 12, 2015

E4E Pamphlet 2016

Scenario—We have lost the Friedrichs case at SCOTUS and union dues are now optional. Gates-funded E4E seizes the opportunity and reaches out to rank and file.

Are you still paying $1300 a year for dues to the United Federation of Teachers? Do you know where that money goes?

A few years ago, Mayor Michael Bloomberg wanted to give highly effective teachers $25,000 a year in bonus pay. That’s twenty-five thousand dollars. But your union blocked that money. In fact,  you paid $1300 that year to ruin your chances of getting it. Even if you got it one year out of the next ten, you’d have double the money you do now by paying the union.

It was your union that repeatedly stood in the mayor’s way. Not only that, but Mayor Bloomberg believed in good teachers so much, he was willing to halve the teaching force and pay the best teachers double. Sure there would have been higher class sizes, but aren’t truly good teachers, like you, up for a challenge?

But that’s not all your union has done. The UFT has fought charter schools tooth and nail. Charters are not bound by union contract, and have no maximum pay range. They can pay teachers as much as they like, and there have been charters that paid all teachers, regardless of experience, $25,000 more than maximum pay for only senior teachers. What are you getting for your $1300? A third of that?

Furthermore, your union has consistently thwarted opportunities for further teacher employment. Governor Cuomo has repeatedly tried to enact a tax credit for private schools. You’ve probably heard about many Catholic schools closing in our area. The union fought this, and Catholic schools continue to close. Thus, fewer teachers get jobs. You may not get a job in a Catholic school as a result of your union’s policies.

The union is all about protecting the worst teachers, and letting teachers like you suffer the consequences. If you are an excellent teacher, you don’t need to stand with a union. You will be recognized by your bosses and rewarded. In fact, if your boss were not limited by a union contract, you wouldn’t be either. You could get bonuses for your excellence and teachers like you could finally be paid what you are worth, regardless of how much that may be.

Are you going to continue to pay $1300 a year to support the UFT’s agenda of less work, fewer opportunities, and lower pay? Or are you going to keep that money and support our movement toward schools in which excellence is recognized and rewarded? You can join Educators4Excellence for free, and tell your colleagues about the benefits of going independent.

The choice is yours. And so is the money. As long as the union is still around, it will continue to provide whatever services it does, whether you pay or not. But if you join us. you will eventually get to negotiate services you need for yourself. Excellent teachers have nothing to fear from such a system.

So here’s what we want to know. Are you excellent, or are you just a hanger-on? Are you ready to take a bold step, or are you just looking for same old, same old? Are you in this job for yourself, or do you want excellence for your students?

If you are the best, stand with us. Unions are so twentieth century. If you are excellent, everyone will know it. Keep the $1300, every year, and dare to make a lot more than that over the course of your career.

The Stupidest Thing I've Read All Week

I read a lot these days, mostly online, so there is a lot of competition for that particular honor. There's Donald Trump, to give just one example.  It's tough to outdo the Donald, as he is a preposterous figure, albeit expert in self-promotion. Personally, I think we need a different standard for people who run education, and are therefore assumed to have educational expertise.

Readers of this blog know well the NYC DOE can always find a place to shine, and it did so this week in a PowerPoint presentation explaining the new state requirements. You will need to use DOE cred to sign in, and I apologize in advance to readers without it. In its never-ending goal to help kids who need it most, NY State has decided to cut direct ESL instruction to newcomers.

Instead, it will devote time to integrated courses, to be either co-taught by ESL teachers and certified subject area teachers, or by subject area teachers with a 12-credit ESL extension. The beauty of this, for administrators who don't give a crap whether kids learn anything, is they can now hire one teacher where they used to need two. They can then cut staff and use the money for fact-finding missions to Oahu, or whatever it is their particular buildings need.

A problem, though, is that they've taken away direct instruction in ESL and substituted pretty much nothing. That is to say, kids who take social studies, math, English and science will still do so, but in one of those classes there will either be a qualified ESL teacher or someone who took some magic summer courses, likely as not from NYSUT. This begs a few questions.

1. How will having a more qualified subject teacher, or teachers, mitigate the fact that the time, test and curriculum for the course is exactly the same?

2. How will having less direct instruction in ESL help any English Language Learners?

3. Why is NYSUT taking any part, direct or otherwise, in a program which will most certainly cause working ESL teachers to lose jobs?

I haven't got any answers, and if you do, I'm all ears. But I led you on with the headline, so let me now share the stupidest thing I've read all week. It's from the PowerPoint. This, according to the geniuses at the DOE, is why we offer direct ESL instruction:

Standalone ESL is instruction to develop English language skills so that students can succeed in core content courses.

I do not teach kids English for that reason. I teach kids English because it is a fundamental need for them in every aspect of their lives, and if there are exceptions they are few and far between.  If it helps them succeed in core content courses, which I’m certain it does, that’s fine. But there’s something really wrong with having people who think like that make rules for kids.

The assumption that core content courses, or any courses for that matter, are the purpose of educating children in English, or indeed any discipline, is so blatantly ignorant that it has me at a rare loss for words. It is our job to prepare children for life, which is something much broader than "college ready." We are role models, not Lucy on the chocolate-wrapping assembly line.

I question the lucidity of any mind that could conceive the goal of learning English is to succeed in core content courses. That's like saying the goal of learning to walk is so students can get to the bus stop more quickly. It's like saying the goal of breathing is to be able to answer higher order questions as set out in the Danielson Framework.

It's so stupid I could probably go on for quite a while, but I will spare you. And saying "this week" is nothing if not an understatement.

Where do they find these people and why on earth are they given the power to make decisions for children about whom they clearly know less than nothing?

Chalkbeat Pre-determines Point of View, then Investigates

Chalkbeat NY nee Gotham Schools looks is looking for happy colocation stories. I saw this in an email, and later on a tweet.

Do you have examples of schools in the same building that are working well together? We want to hear from you — whether it’s sharing resources, having joint professional development sessions for teachers, or sending out a building-wide newsletter.

I responded to the tweet and asked why they were only looking for one side of the story, but received no response.

It seems to me that the only reason there are colocations is because Bloomberg decided public schools were awful, and decided that Bill Gates' notion of small schools was the way to go. Gates has since dropped this idea, but in New York we are the first to adopt bad ideas and the last to drop them, so it lives on here. Of course these schools may be small public schools or charter schools. Maybe Eva Moskowitz has moved in, and of course Chalkbeat needs to tell the world why that's a great thing.

But why? Isn't it the job of journalists to report what actually happens? Why wouldn't they just ask what life is like in schools that share space? If it is indeed wonderful, surely people will say so. And if there are flaws, if Moskowitz is not precisely a good neighbor, people can say that too.

But that's not what Chalkbeat NY is looking for. Chalkbeat NY wants the success stories, and they are evidently so hard to find that it must advertise to find them. If that's the case, why are these stories important? There's always an exception to prove the rule. But if that's all you intend to feature, you are simply not projecting anything resembling objective reality.

Now lots of us note that Chalkbeat takes Gates money, that it features E4E as though they actually represented teachers, that it's all over everything charter, and that voices that reflect what really happens in public school are not given space over there. But the answer we get from them, invariably, is that they are not biased. Rather, they claim to be looking at everything objectively.

Why, then, do they actively solicit one side of a story, a side so difficult to locate that they must advertise publicly for it?

I don't read Chalkbeat as much as I used to since their ponderous redesign. I can't really tell which stories are new and they no longer feature comments on their front page. I actually thought the interaction with readers was a great feature, even if their choice of what to report on leaned heavily toward the reformy. They also dropped their nightcap, which featured voices other than those in MSM. But while its format is total drek, it doesn't appear to have bothered to make its reporting any more objective.

Personally, I have no problem with points of view. That's what this blog is all about. I do have a problem when people claim to be objective, and plainly are not. Unfortunately, that's exactly what I see over at Chalkbeat.

Whither Democracy, UFT?

How does a top-down, undemocratic, loyalty-oath driven UFT survive an unfavorable decision in Fredrichs v. California? Who is gonna pay $1300 a year to a union that has a fundamental aversion to essential democracy? If leadership can't inspire 20% of working members to vote in union elections, how the hell are they gonna get the majority to pay voluntarily?

The last time UFT lost dues checkoff was after a strike in 1975. It took until 1982 to resolve, and UFT lost 20% of its revenue. I hear that some UFT employees actually had to leave offices and go back to work in classrooms. Oh, the horror!

The thing is, on the heels of a strike, people saw things differently. Members had actually walked out en masse to support union. Members were united by a common cause. Members knew they were UFT, and that they had stood up for something. I'm not at all sure members know that anymore.

Times have changed. For example, I doubt UFT President Michael Mulgrew thought he'd need to sell union to every working member when he got up and said he'd punch Common Core opponents in the face and push their faces in the dirt. You have to wonder whether he's regretting having shown no punchiness whatsoever when we went years without a contract. You have to wonder if he's regretting having helped negotiate junk science evaluation, or thanking the Heavy Hearts Assembly for having passed an even worse version of it.

You have to wonder about a leader whose vision for fighting back entails mounting a Twitter campaign in which he himself does not participate. You have to wonder about a leader who refuses to take on the high-stakes testing noose around our necks because of the claim civil rights groups support it. (If they do, they're wrong and it's our job to let them know why.)  The opt-out movement is more important than our leaders realize, and merits more than lip service. The SCOTUS case is even more important, and should worse come to worst, we'll need someone who can envision something more than a Twitter campaign he himself can't be bothered with.

Here is a golden opportunity for leadership to embrace democracy rather than absolute control over everything no matter what. Here is a chance for them to utilize the voices of those who oppose VAM, mayoral control, school closings, charter schools, high-stakes testing, privatization, and the entire more-work-for-less-pay thrust of the hedge-funders and billionaires who've been setting the agenda of American education.

In short, here's a chance for them to preclude disaster, at least to some extent. They can say yes, we hear you. They can say yes, we will represent you and we will allow you a voice in the UFT. They can say yes, we will not only collect dues for NYSUT and AFT, but also we will give you a voice and a vote, even if it means disappointing some of our reliable rubber stamps.

I advise you to sit while you wait for that. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Breaking News Unleashed: Doubt Thrown on the Legality of Julio's 2016 Challenge to Union Leadership

NYC Educator,

An abridged draft of the following letter was "leaked" the other day at the pet park.  It seems to be written in the same spirit as the recent letter regarding Mr. Eterno's proposal of an ATR chapter.  Since its contents will soon become public, I will share the letter with the faithful readership.  It pertains to Julio 2016 and its follow-up post, "UFT Presidential Race Heats Up."--Arwen

                                                                                                               By E-mail and Registered Mail
July 4, 2015

Dr. Midnight Sheprador
Secretary-Treasurer
American Federation of Teachers
555 New Jersey Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20001

Dear Secretary-Treasurer Sheprador,

I write in response to your letter dated July 1, 2015 concerning a challenge (the "Canine Challenge") submitted by Julio, Animalia, C. Lupus, Canidae ("Dog")  to the 2016 Election Guide and By-Laws (the "By-Laws") of the United Federation of Teachers ("UFT").

We are not wholly unaware that pets have provided serious challenges to political leadership in the past.  Prior to the current "Canine Challenge," Boston Curtis, a mule, got off his ass and won a precinct seat in Milton, Washington, by a vote of fifty-one to zero (1938).  A rhinoceros, incarcerated at the Sao Paolo Zoo, ran for office in 1958 to protest political corruption. With low voter turnout (where have we heard that before???), the competitor, with particularly pointed comments, won 100,000 invalidated votes, more than any other candidate.  And retired rhinocerii were not even allowed to vote!  Dogs, cats, chimpanzees, a Yipee boar hog and sundry other critters, with and without legs, have all at some point jumped into or through the political ring.  There is no novelty in this.

Because the By-Laws afford all UFT members - including those who are working in the "Companion Pet Reserve" ("CPR") and those who are temporarily filling in for teachers on leave - a full and fair opportunity to participate in Union elections through their owners and are fully consistent with the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act ("LMRDA," Title IV, Elections), I respectfully request the challenge of Julio Dog, to run for UFT president be dismissed without it being referred to the AFT's Executive Council.

To aid your office in considering the Challenge, it is important to understand the context in which it arises.  All full-time members, with or without canines, felines, fish, lizards, and otherwise, may nominate, be nominated, vote and be elected in a school's election.  Anyone properly elected may serve.  The Challenge does not appear to seriously contest this point, and for this reason alone, should be dismissed.

Similarly, I am advised that, even it were determined that the LMRDA does apply, there would be no violation of election provisions of Title LXV.  In Wuff v. Pee at the Hotel, Motel & Club Emp. Carpet Cleaners Union. Local 999, 975 U.S. 893, 997 (1967), the U.S. Supreme Court explained that this provision "require[s] adequate safeguards to insure a fair election; guarantee[s] a reasonable opportunity for the nomination of candidates, the right to vote, and the right of every member in good standing to be a candidate, free of fear of soiling carpets, defecating in public spaces and defacing furniture, shedding their skin [and to hold office] subject to reasonable qualifications uniformly imposed." This is precisely what the Bylaws accomplish for all bona-fide candidates.

So, we have only to ask whether or not Julio Dog is a bona-fide candidate.  It is our contention that while he may be fortified with bones, he is not bona fide.  We attempted to serve him notice of this very fact upon several occasions before he, maliciously and menacingly, threatened to relentlessly bite the pant legs of the appropriate authorities.  Accordingly, the Bylaws rules are not only in line with the law, but they are reasonable and fair--while Julio Dog is not!

Sincerely,

Emu Your Petnocango
Secretary
United Federation of Teachers

cc:   Julio
       Emmie
       Peppi
       Bernice
       Penny Lane
       Michael Mulgrew
       Randi Weingarten
       NYC Educator
       Wolverine
       Lucan
       Etc., etc. and so forth

Baby, Baby, Where Did Our Union Go?

OK, it's not those Supremes, but not only do I like them better, but they also look better than the current bunch. Nonetheless, the national Supremes are looking at a case that aims to hobble union. How many of the over 80% of working UFT members who don't vote in elections will pony up a thousand bucks a year if they don't have to?

Not only that, but how many of the 17 or 18% of working members who vote will continue to pay?  Last week I wrote about an email I got that blamed the union's failure to work against Cuomo on too few people wanting to be delegates and listen to the blather that passes for a forum over at 52 Broadway.

This week I got a different message from the email. Chapter leaders should look at their agency fee payers and make sure they sign up as union members. I'm not precisely sure how that would change things, but since he brought it up, I do that each and every year. The people in my building who are fee payers are that way because no matter how many times they sign up, and I've actually watched some of them do it online, they never quite get registered. I know of precisely no one who's a fee-payer on principle.

The message went on to remind chapter leaders that they have a personal incentive to sign these people--an extra five bucks a year in the CL stipend per member who signs. Since I'm at max, I wouldn't get that big five bucks. But if five bucks were the sort of thing that motivated me, imagine what I'd do if I could save a thousand bucks by not paying my union negotiators for the frankly abysmal job they do. I wouldn't have to pay Punchy Mike to tell me the cupboard was bare when there were billions of dollars in de Blasio's sofa cushions. I wouldn't need to actually contribute to the salary of the man who turns off the microphone of truth-teller James Eterno. I wouldn't need to kick in for 750 rubber stamps to travel all over the country to applaud when Mulgrew threatens to punch us in the face. (Right now, they're at the NEA Convention in Orlando, doing whatever the hell it is they are told to do.)

Tempting, ain't it?

The thing is, those of us who oppose the lack of democracy in UFT are fervent believers in union. I'd wager a lot of folks on the gravy train don't have convictions nearly so strong, if at all. I've known chapter leaders who slept through meetings they ran. Who knows what the hell they did at meetings where they were ostensibly representing others?

This is some serious shit, and in Wisconsin, it pretty much left union dead in its tracks. Maybe it's time for something more than a Twitter campaign. Maybe the next time Punchy Mike calls for a Twitter campaign he ought to, you know, join Twitter himself. Doubtless I'm just some wild-eyed radical with loony ideas about leading by example.

But if the union is seriously thinking about, say, surviving, it better come up with something more than paying the chapter leader five bucks. (And no, I'm not suggesting they pay ten bucks.)

We need a membership that is intrinsically motivated, not just a bunch of people who will say any damn thing for a meal and a free trip to Schenectady. 

If We Win Nothing, We Still Win

What is progress? Is progress when we get to speak freely about the abysmal quality of state tests? If so, we haven't precisely made any. Apparently, teachers are now free to discuss the contents of tests after they are made public. The problem, of course, is that pretty much everyone is free to discuss pretty much anything that is public. So what have we gained?

“We’ve loosened the gag but not untied it completely,” said Karen E. Magee, president of the New York State United Teachers union. “But it is certainly progress.”

All due respect, I have no idea why. Ms. Magee, like many union leaders, sees something positive here. It's actually ridiculous to call this progress.

Another test-security rule that Ms. Phillips and others have complained about is one that says teachers who proctor the exams cannot read them. That rule remains in place.

You're not even allowed to read the exams. So if some hapless kid has a question, you say, "Sorry, kid, but state law prohibits me from looking at your paper." How idiotic is that?

I wonder whether it's part of Magee's job description to keep that sunny outlook and find good in everything. Our local union President, Michael Mulgrew, does much the same. In fact, an email I received from Magee seems very much to echo his talking points.

Months of tireless activism by NYSUT's mobilized leaders and members, in unity with parents and our coalition partners, convinced the Legislature this week to reject a toxic, test-and-punish agenda and begin to turn the tide on over-testing!

We beat back the education tax credit that would have been a giveaway to rich supporters of private schools, stopped the push to make the tax cap permanent, and made progress on testing and transparency. This good news underscores the momentum our solidarity continues to build in advancing NYSUT's agenda -- positioning us well for the challenges that remain.

But I'm not feeling the joy. Not only have we made zero progress on the test thing, but also we've gone backward on evaluation. Our strategy to beat that back, if indeed you could call it one, was to ignore the evaluation issue utterly and focus on budget. The tactic, as put forth by UFT President Michael Mulgrew, was to get on Twitter and talk about what #AllKidsNeed, and to #InviteCuomo to our classrooms.

Now there's nothing wrong with that. I participated. (Mulgrew did not.) But the thing that bothers most of the teachers with whom I speak is, in fact, the evaluation system. No one likes it. Everyone is on edge. And while we can focus on what we did not lose, yet, it is not yet time to declare victory and have a party.

We're looking at a new system designed specifically because not enough teachers were being fired under the current one. That is the only reason this system came into being. Mulgrew can point to the matrix and claim tests don't count for 50% of teacher ratings. Maybe they count for 30%. Maybe they count for 49%. Or maybe he's wrong, because there are only two axes, and one of them is testing.

But does that even matter when we're in a system expressly designed to fire more teachers? If this system doesn't fire enough teachers, are we going to get a system that tries to even more teachers? Will that merit a thank you as well?

Mulgrew thanked the Heavy Hearts for voting for this system. If everything we do is wonderful, if we're in the best of all possible worlds, if whatever happens is progress, how do we know when something goes wrong? How do we know when leadership is acting in our interests?

In fact, if we rely on leadership to keep us informed, how do we know anything at all?

The Hypocrisy of Admin Demanding Constant Assessment

There's a new thing in town. Apparently, though test scores are to count up to 50% of your rating, you aren't supposed to use them too much when rating your students. You need to constantly keep your eye on them, and constantly ask them whether they understand or not. You could, for example ask them to raise their right hands if they understand, or their left if they do not. Or you could give them red and green cards. Have them hold up green if they understand, and red if they don't.

This is an odd system, if you ask me. I use the old-fashioned method of constantly asking questions and seeing who can and cannot answer. I am also constantly walking around to see who's on task, who isn't, who's doing it right, and who isn't. But this isn't acceptable anymore, apparently. Rather, I am to rely on the word of a bunch of teenagers for whether or not they understand. Naturally, since this system assumes teenagers to be perfectly secure in themselves at all times, they will never, ever have issues admitting in front of all their peers that they don't understand what's going on.

This is odd, because I learned early on that the question, "Do you understand?" is totally useless. If I depend on kids to tell me whether they understand, I won't find out whether or not they're telling me the truth until I actually give a test and check the results. Because guess what? A lot of people who don't know what's going on simply will not admit it, and that applies to already insecure teenagers as much as anyone. In fact, when is the last time you heard a mea culpa from your principal? When's the last time you got one from your union leader?

I mean, if your supervisor insists you spend class time with kids raising cards, you could always ask them to just raise the green ones to each and every question, and then you will look like a genius. But that's not what's bothering me here. If it is good practice to constantly assess rather than wait until test time, why do we have a system to evaluate professionals that is exactly opposite?

Right now, in NYC, the MOTP portion of your rating is based upon as few as 4 snapshot observations, a single hour of the many you put in throughout the year. Some must be off the cuff, since the system assumes you sit around and read the paper at the desk all year until the supervisor comes in. Then, of course, you give a highly effective textbook lesson, because you can turn on the good stuff whenever you feel like it. I'd argue that, for better or worse, we do all we can all the time, but that's not the point either.

The point is, particularly if you're struggling, particularly if you need help, it's the supervisor's job to provide assistance. If you are not getting a decent rating, it's unconscionable if the supervisor only walked in four times and told you you sucked. It's particularly unconscionable if said supervisor is one who subscribes to the perpetual assessment theory and imposes it on his underlings. Leaders practice what they preach.

I'd argue that formative observations, those that don't count, are a waste of time if a teacher is doing well. In fact, for a teacher doing well, the required four observations are probably a whole lot more than enough. But if the supervisor, the one who fervently believes in formative assessment, can't be bothered to practice it for those he's charged with assessing, he's a hypocrite of the first order, and ought to find a job more suited to his particular talents.

I'm thinking the line at Wendy's, but I'm open to suggestions.

UFT Presidential Race Heats Up

In our continuing coverage of the UFT Presidential campaign, NYC Educator is pleased to keep you apprised of all the important candidates. In alphabetical order:

Emmie--Emmie's campaign is managed by MORE member Lauren Cohen. As you can see, she is already wearing a MORE button. Emmie presumes herself to be the nominee, and organized a play date, attended by most candidates, in which she proposed a unified slate. However, after extensive questioning, both Julio and Peppi left believing that Emmi would only participate in a slate in which she were the presidential candidate. Neither Julio nor Peppi, in the end, committed to endorsing Emmie. However, all parties deemed her the best dressed of all the candidates.

If elected, Emmie promises to end the scourge of water fountains that are too high for the vertically challenged to drink from, and promises to lobby for water bowls at regular intervals in school buildings.

Julio--Julio is an independent, and refuses to align himself with any one caucus at this time.  Julio attended the doggie play date organized by Emmie, but declined to endorse her, claiming her presentation was unpersuasive. While admiring her outfit, Julio felt it was inappropriate for campaign season. Julio prefers a more sporty and natural look, and feels wearing a heavy shirt will get in the way of his job performance. Julio says this is particularly true in the summer, when it's hot, and says it would be extremely "rough" to meet all the job requirements if he were dressed like Emmie.

Julio carries the much-coveted NYC Educator endorsement. Both Emmie and Peppi object to this, claiming the endorsement was issued before they were fully vetted. Peppi was particularly upset, accusing Julio of undue influence, and even residing at the blogger's home. Peppi characterized this as not only prejudicial, but also extremely "rough." While Emmie withheld comment on this accusation, Julio implied Peppi was getting personal and said there was no need for bringing the campaign into the gutter. Julio is the youngest of the candidates and suggests his youth will enable him to have the vision the union needs to move forward. Julio's ticket is filling out quickly, and he has endorsed Bernice and Penny Lane as secretary and treasurer.





Michael Mulgrew--Mulgrew is the incumbent UFT President, endorsed by both Unity and New Action. Mulgrew is the only one of the candidates who did not attend the play date, but in fairness, Emmie admits failing to notify him, having dispensed invites at the doggie park.

NYC Educator reached out to Mulgrew, but Mulgrew did not answer the email. Thus, Mulgrew's position on inter-species elections remains murky. Mulgrew is a member of the Unity Caucus, and it has characterized its opponents as "Chicken little." Both Emmie and Julio took offense at that characterization, insisting neither was chicken. They also felt this characterization was an attack on their diminutive stature, and Emmie cited the Mark Twain quote, "It's not the dog in the fight, it's the fight in the dog." Peppi refused to comment on Mulgrew, vowing not to make the campaign personal. Peppi pointed out the importance of always keeping an open mouth, and noted that Mulgrew was the only candidate, other than himself, to have one.

Peppi--Peppi is also running as an independent, but it's clear his campaign manager, Mike Schirtzer, is affiliated with MORE. Peppi insists he will not be influenced by his manager's affiliation, but we at NYC Educator question his independence.

Peppi attended the doggie play date but has not, to date, agreed to endorse Emmie. He says he is the best candidate for UFT President because not only does he keep his ears open, but he keeps his mouth open as well.

Peppi portrays himself as the social justice candidate. He believes, particularly given the way people vote for the likes of Scott Walker and Andrew Cuomo, that elections should be open to all species. He also believes that there should be a minimum canine age of 2 years, and therefore considers Julio to be unqualified for the position of UFT President. Julio characterized this accusation as excessively "rough."