When the Tech Doesn't Take

I was exiled to the trailers for at least a decade. Technology came, and technology went. There were rolling tables filled with laptops. There were other rolling tables full of ipads. There were little projectors that allowed you to show images from your computer. There were smartboards. There were manipulatives and there were workshops that taught me how to use all of the above.

Of course, in the trailer, there were four walls (most of the time) and a blackboard. At some point, while everyone else had smartboards, they wheeled in a Dell laptop with a projector. It was secured to the wall with a chain that made it look like something out of The Cask of Amontillado. It frightened me. And it had no speakers. I actually bought a set somewhere, and used it to show video from time to time.

In our school, the principal took a dim view of smartboards, as he'd grown weary of replacing lightbulbs at $400 a pop. So he started taking them down and replacing them with LED screens. Shortly thereafter, a smartboard was installed in the trailer. It was pretty imposing and impressive looking. Of course no one bothered to connect it to a computer, so as impressive as it looked, it was really more of a dumb board than a smartboard.

A little over a year ago, my AP kicked me out of the trailer. Sure, I'd been kicked out of worse places. But one good thing was that my new classroom also had a non-functioning smartboard, so I kind of felt at home. I took to hanging my jacket on it every day and pointing out to both the students and my supervisor that I was making use of the technology. I demanded credit for it on my observations, but you know how unreasonable supervisors can be.

But then the principal went and installed the LED screen in my room. Not only that, but he attached it to a computer that actually worked, a Mac no less. I was really up against it. I had our twenty-something Chinese teacher explain to me what to do. She was very thorough. Now I've got PowerPoints to accompany my lessons. They're really great for vocabulary. I'm not much of an artist, but I can find pretty much anything in Google Images.

The thing is, though, that once you get used to this, it's hard to do without it. Doubtless the Mac Mini in my classroom is equipped with Mini Memory too. Sometimes my PowerPoints freeze and die. When that happens I usually have to restart the machine. I pull my thumb drive out of the Mini and use my Macbook Air to display images. My computer, being non-DOE, seems to work all the time with no issue whatsoever.

Sometimes the Mac restarts before I finish, and I'm able to continue using the large display. Sometimes it doesn't, and I walk around with my 13-inch screen like an elementary teacher showing children pictures from The Cat in the Hat. But now that I've started with this stuff, it's really hard to turn around. I used to explain words and draw pictures. Sometimes I'd hear the words repeated in various languages I didn't want to hear in my English class. But pictures are the best.

When young teachers would complain to me about the tech crapping out, I used to think how lucky I was to not depend upon it at all. Now I understand their complaints and have pretty much the same ones.

I can't tell whether I'm moving forward or backward.

Drunk Drivers against Mad Mothers Present NYC Educator

OK, that’s not really true. Nonetheless, I was pretty surprised to read the following heading on an email I get from Politico, nee Capital NY.

POLITICO New York Education, presented by Families for Excellent Schools: A quiet exit from Fund for Public Schools; task force likely to weigh in on teacher evals

Right up there in the subject line is an ad for Families for Excellent Schools. Here’s a thought—they’re neither composed of families nor for excellent schools. But that, evidently, is of no concern to Politico. If you have the cash, you can get top billing in their email. When Whoremongers for Personal Indulgence want to get the word out, doubtless Politico will take their cash.

And by the way, here's the very first article they presented today:

SCOOP: IN SHIFT, FAMILIES FOR EXCELLENT SCHOOLS PUTS RALLY STRATEGY ON HOLD—POLITICO New York’s Eliza Shapiro: “Marking a significant shift in its lobbying strategy, the influential charter school advocacy group Families for Excellent Schools will not hold a political rally in Albany this legislative session for the first time since Mayor Bill de Blasio took office, several sources confirmed. A spokesperson for FES did not respond to requests for comment on Wednesday. But sources close to the charter school advocacy sector said the group was no longer getting policy results from the costly rallies.” 

Coincidence?

I’m trying very hard here to avoid Godwin’s Law and not even cite any overtly bigoted groups in this piece. But I’ve long felt we were stereotyped all over the media. For decades I’ve been reading about how lazy tenured unionized teachers sit around at their desks and read the newspaper while hapless kids throw paper airplanes and wander about aimlessly. Of course that’s ridiculous, but you see that image propagated in the tabloids and even the Times praises all things reformy.

FES are joined at the hip to Moskowitz, and for weeks I’ve been seeing their “Don’t Steal Possible” ad in the Politico newsletter. I understand that Politico needs cash and can’t get by on those million dollar online subscriptions alone, but having this in the headline seems beyond the pale to me, at least. It’s kind of like trumpeting, “We’re on sale to the highest bidder.”

In fairness, I emailed back with my concerns. One of the reporters wrote back saying their reporting was independent and not influenced by one side or another. Even if that’s true it’s hard to swallow. Having the FES name in the very email title is not an accident. Clearly they wanted it there and paid to get it there. It is, in fact, the first thing you see when you get this email. Its priority clearly outweighs that of any story (even disregarding the fact that today's first story is about FES).

And it’s very hard to take their reporting seriously while they’re wearing a badge like that. In fact, I don’t think I even read the email or looked at the links. It’s offensive to me that an organization that hates me and everything I stand for announces itself in my little email box. I cannot take an organization seriously when the first thing they have to say to me is that they’ve been bought off by hedgefunders who oppose union, working teachers, activist parents, and happy children.

I would not want my child, or yours, or anyone’s, in a Moskowitz Academy under any circumstance. I don’t want children subject to rigor, grit and the attendant extra clothing it requires when frightened kids pee themselves. I wouldn’t wish that on my dog, and I’d hope we all love our children at least as much as I love the dog.

Why I'm Not Donating to Chalkbeat (And You Shouldn't Either)

For the last few days I've been receiving missives from Chalkbeat NY, nee Gotham Schools, to contribute money. They want me to support the great work they say they're doing. I have actually been following them pretty much since their inception, and I still get their daily Rise and Shine, which I occasionally find useful.

They used to have something called Nightcap, which gave alternate points of view, like blogs, but now it's pretty much all from reformy MSM sources. They used to feature comments on the front page, back when it made a difference what conmmenters thought. And it used to be easy to read, before they instituted their new and largely ponderous format.

I was solicited to write for them. The first piece I did was a report on a PS 123 rally. I reported what the speakers said and was attacked for the speakers being inaccurate. It had not occurred to me that for my salary, nothing whatsoever, I was supposed to investigate their statements. After that, I was subject to the most brutal editing process I've ever experienced. Everything was pretty much gone over with a fine tooth comb, sometimes for the better, but not always.

After battling for months, I submitted this piece. Chalkbeat objected that I'd labeled Cathie Black as billionaire-sponsored, though Michael Bloomberg had appointed her. They objected to my saying TFA favored Ivy diplomas, though at the time they certainly did. I don't recall the third objection, but I do recall that it wasn't even debatable. That was the end of my tenure at Chalkbeat. Truthfully I'm more interested in using my voice, rather than have it watered down to be more acceptable to the reformies.

I later objected when they decided to place a piece about 100 E4E members signing some petition for more work for less pay, or whatever nonsense they were pushing that week. Gotham told me they would happily run a piece if I got 100 signatures. I wrote a petition asking that the ESL students in all schools school have their Regents exams graded by ESL teachers.  This was the policy for schools containing high percentages of ESL students. Although my school had lower percentages than some of these schools, we in fact had higher numbers. I didn't understand, if indeed that was an advantage, why my students weren't entitled to it.

I wrote the petition in five minutes and had 100 signatures within an hour. Just for the heck of it, I added the signatures of most of our School Leadership Team. I submitted it to Chalkbeat. A Chalkbeat reporter called me and we talked. She asked for the name of another teacher who could address it. I gave her one. Then I never heard anything of it again.

I've been to UFT rallies that haven't received mention in Chalkbeat, even though every time Eva Moskowitz blows her nose they report what color Kleenex she used. When I wrote them to complain, they gave me a snide response about how they were giving their reporters the summer off. You know, like us lazy worthless teachers. But this particular lazy worthless teacher was at the Manhattan rally that day, the one Chalkbeat didn't see fit to report. You'd better believe if E4E had a rally it would make the cut.

That's why I'm not giving a dime to Chalkbeat. Instead I made a donation to Class Size Matters, an organization that works for things we believe in (as opposed to things zillionaires want). If you'd like to follow my example, and I very much suggest you do, you can do it right here.

It's About Time

That's my new watch on the right, the black one. I bought it from Groupon for 39 bucks. I'm really fond of watches and I have a few I really like. I have a Seiko Mickey Mouse watch that kids always comment on, but I only wear that once in a while. I have pretty conservative looking watches for the most part.

A few weeks back, I bought an Apple Watch for 400 bucks. It seemed like a good idea at the time. After all, with the watch attached to my phone it would always give me the correct time, as opposed to my analog watch which I may or may not have set right.

I wore it for one day, but it looked like a digital watch I might have bought for 12 bucks in 1978. It was really a crappy-looking thing for something that came from Apple. It had a cheap plastic band and really reminded me of something I see in a 25 cent gumball-like machine in our local Chinese takeout. It was good maybe for washing the dishes, but beyond that I couldn't see myself wearing it for you know, work and stuff.

When I brought it back to the Apple Store, the guy showed me his Apple Watch. It looked identical to mine but his cost 600 bucks, minus whatever discount he got for working in the place. I told him, all due respect, but I couldn't see the difference. He showed me one in the display case that had a metal band. He said that was really the one he wanted, but it cost a thousand bucks and he couldn't afford it. So for a watchband that didn't look like total crap, Apple wanted 400 bucks extra. I did a Google search and found aftermarket metal watchbands that looked better than Apple's for under 30 bucks.

But I had had it with the Apple Watch, even though I love their products, including the MacBook Air I'm using right now. When I saw this for 39 bucks, I figured I'd better take a chance. It's really growing on me. It alerts me to calls, texts and email in that little message window on the bottom. I push a button and it shows me the time according to my iPhone. It also tells me the date and gives me a weather forecast. Every time I get in the car it tells me how long it will take me to get either home or to NYC. And it can alert you to all sorts of other stuff if you ask it to.

Best of all, it's called a Martian. That's particularly apt if you're wearing the red one. It doesn't look quite as good as some other watches I have, but it's very practical. I don't own stock in this company or anything, but it's a really cool tool for someone running around doing 50 things at once. You know, like a teacher or something. It works with Android phones too, they say. And it evidently does other things I haven't figured out too.


I'm gonna stick with it for a while. If you don't feel like shelling out 400 bucks and up for an Apple thing that looks like crap, I highly recommend it.

The Wit and Wisdom of Class Size Arbitrators

Our arbitrator couldn't remember my name or that of my principal, and got them both wrong, but it doesn't matter. It's not like a parking ticket, where you can appeal.

There were not a whole lot of oversized classes by the time my school got to a hearing. One of them was a College Now class. I've been protesting them for the last three semesters, as they are oversized and I think 34 is already too high. Though they take place in our public school building, are taught by UFT teachers, and consist of our students, the arbitrators have ruled over and over that since a college pays the teacher salary class size rules don't apply. I don't care. I will keep protesting them.

In another case, we had a period ten class of 41 students. I'm told this is a remedial class, consisting only of students who'd previously failed the course. In that case, I have to question the wisdom of placing them in a class of 41. How the hell are students who already failed the class supposed to be supported when the teacher's attention is so widely divided? Don't kids who've already proven to have trouble need more attention, not less? This was defended by administration as being outside the normal school day and therefore not subject to contract. However, a recent arbitration says that even these classes are subject to class size regs.

The DOE lawyer argued that the precedent did not apply, and that if it did they wanted an exception. It must be a heckuva job to sit in an office all day and argue kids need larger classes. In any case, the arbitrator decided to grant a "half-class exception," which means it's just fine for 41 kids to sit in the class.

I also grieved a Saturday special education class that had 46 students. Admin has argued, to me, that not all 46 students are there at once. I did not find that argument particularly compelling. After all, if only 45 kids show, or if even 34 show, it's still too much, particularly when you consider that there are 46 IEPs to be considered. I thought there was no way the arbitrator would grant another exception, but alas, that's what I get for thinking. The arbitrator is fine with it, but I'm not, so I filed a UFT special education complaint. I'm pretty sure the state would not look fondly on a special education class of 46.

The last cases I had were of classes taught by two teachers. One had 39 students and the other had 69. An argument could be made that since there were two teachers there could be up to 68 students in the class. I'm told they have an unusually large classroom. Now, if it were me, I'd say OK, why not transfer one of the students from the class of 69 into the class of 39. Of course, it wasn't me, and the arbitrator didn't bother with any remedy at all. Why invoke a simple and obvious solution when you can just ignore the rules and say that's the way things are?

I've read other arbitrators order that oversized classes stay the same but that teachers be relieved from their C6 assignments. While that might be nice for teachers wasting their time on potty patrol, it really doesn't serve the kids well at all. I wonder why, in a system with the largest class sizes in the state, we can't just say follow the damn rule and be done with it.

APPR and the American Way

Right now we're looking at a system that entails only 20% state-imposed BS, and 20% local BS. This is a great system, according to UFT President Punchy Mike Mulgrew. I've seen him say so repeatedly. According to Punchy Mike, it's a great improvement over the last system in which principals could give bad ratings whenever they felt like it.

I suppose that might be true if it were not for the fact that 70% of those facing 3020a under the new system will have the burden of proof on them, rather than the city. They are guilty until proven innocent. Is that the American Way?

Actually, as a rule, the American Way is even worse than that. In New York, for example, unless there's a contract that says otherwise, people are at will employees. They can be fired for any reason or even no reason. That's one reason a lot of people have little sympathy for teachers. And rather than say we want what you have, they say we want you to be just as miserable as we are.

But teachers need to be socially conscious and politically active. Despite what you may read in the NY Post, we actually represent the children we serve. That's a fundamental part of our job. People may be surprised to learn that administrators who are indifferent or abusive to employees are often not a whole lot better with children. This is true whether said administrators are federal, state, or even hyper-local.

Under the current junk science-based system, teachers in NYC with consecutive bad ratings are facing 3020a. And despite what Punchy Mike said, principals can still give the very worst ratings based on their druthers. Anyone who contends that a Danielson rubric makes things fair is either delusional or disingenuous. Administrators can see what they wish to and ignore what they wish to. I've seen incontrovertible video evidence of that. There is no advantage whatsoever in the addition of junk science, and worse, even if a principal gives a positive rating the junk science can drag you down to ineffective. I've seen that too.

As for the much-vaunted UFT peer validators, the ones leadership maintained represented an improvement over the old system that was never even tested,  they have tanked 70% of those they observed. It must be very rewarding to send your brothers and sisters through a process that will almost certainly result in their termination. I can't remember whether it's 10 or 20K per annum the validators take for that particular service.

So while it will be nice if Cuomo's draconian and punitive new APPR is not enacted, the current one is already an abomination. Just because we don't move further backward is not cause for celebration.

Why Is Reformy Andy Cuomo Backing Down on Junk Science?

Like everyone who pays attention, I was pretty amazed to read in the NY Times that Governor Andrew Cuomo is looking to tamp down his teacher evaluation mandate. After all, hadn't he said that the new system, the one he backed and pushed, was "baloney?" He was clearly upset that not enough public school teachers had been badly rated and fired. After all, the developmentally inappropriate tests he had mandated, with no preparation whatsoever, had managed to fail a large number of New York's children. Surely he could blame the public schools and turn them over to his wealthy BFFs. There were billions to be made.

But alas, there was pushback. The moms whose kids Arne Duncan insulted were not ready to throw in the towel. They were not prepared to label their children as dummies and turn over their schools to Cuomo's campaign contributors. Opt-out fever hit NY State widely, and grew in leaps and bounds. Cuomo, seen as invincible after his first run against some Buffalo lunatic, began to show chinks in his armor. And on education, his popularity fell into the toilet. Ever reformy MaryEllen Elia suggested that junk science should count for 20, rather than 50% of teacher ratings.

Diane Ravitch pointed to this piece as significant, but urged caution.

This may be a hoax, a temporary moratorium intended to deflate the Opt Out Movement and cause it to disappear. Do not rest until the law is changed to delink testing and teacher-principal evaluations. The new federal law-not yet enacted-eliminates the federal mandate that Duncan imposed without authorization by Congress. New York may now permanently eliminate this punitive, anti-educational requirement.

New York parents: As Ronald Reagan said,  “Trust, but verify.” I suggest turning that saying around: “Verify, then trust.” Meanwhile, to quote an even older saying, keep your troops together and “keep your powder dry.”

Of course I agree. Trusting Andrew Cuomo is an egregious error. Punchy Mike Mulgrew trusted him when he opposed Bloomberg's LIFO-killing bill, but it was pretty clear Governor Andy thought his new junk-science APPR bill was gonna serve to fire those inconvenient unionized teachers. Punchy Mike trusted him so much he didn't bother to oppose Cuomo in primaries, let alone the general election. Cuomo thanked him by enacting the not only the most punitive and draconian teacher rating system I've ever seen, but also receivership that made collective bargaining agreements moot  (a system for which Punchy Mike thanked the Heavy Hearts Legislature).

Why would Governor Andy even pay lip service to reversing his reforminess? I have a theory. Perhaps he expects Friedrichs to win. Were that to happen, the inconvenient New York teacher unions would crumble in influence. After all, even now they spend all their time looking for a "seat at the table" and don't accomplish a whole lot beyond buttressing the pensions of Mulgrew's pals in Revive NYSUT.

Were NYSUT and UFT to be effectively defunded, that might mean opposing public education would be even easier than it is now. After all, UFT already supports charters, and does nothing when Governor Andy forces NYC to pay rent for them even if the city doesn't want them. What's gonna happen if dues become optional?

UFT has not been gung-ho unionist in decades. Many members don't even know what union entails. How else can you explain an overwhelming vote for what is essentially two-tier due process? How else can you explain leadership even proposing such an abomination?

Maybe the reformies, after watching us invite Gates to keynote the AFT convention, not only don't fear us, but no longer even think we bear consideration. Maybe they know that removing the gravy train from our non-teaching leaders will render us even less of a factor.

Cuomo has no moral center and does nothing without a viable self-serving reason. While I shudder to contemplate the diabolical workings of whatever remains of his soul, he always has an ulterior motive.

Related: On Facebook, Kevin Glynn comments: With the receivership law in place, you no longer need teacher Evals. Jamie Mc Nair comments: If the Lederman case goes her way, the continued use of test scores to evaluate teachers will be politically next to impossible (or potentially illegal?). Perhaps Andy knows more than we do and just wants to look like he was on the side of the winner before the victor is announced.

The Danielson Guide to a Highly Effective Thanksgiving

Full disclosure--found on the internet, unattributed. 

Ineffective: You don't know how to cook a turkey. You serve a chicken instead. Half your family doesn't show because they are unmotivated by your invitation, which was issued at the last minute via facebook. The other half turn on the football game and fall asleep. Your aunt tells your uncle where to stick the drumstick and a brawl erupts. Food is served on paper plates in front of the TV. You watch the game, and root for the Redskins.

Developing: You set the alarm, but don't get up and the turkey is undercooked. 3 children are laughing while you say grace. 4 of your nephews refuse to watch the game with the rest of the family because you have failed to offer differentiated game choices. Conversation during dinner is marked by family members mumbling under their breath at your Aunt Rose, who confuses the Mayflower with the Titanic after her third Martini. Only the drunk guests thank you on the way out. Your team loses the game.

Effective: The turkey is heated to the right temperature. All the guests, whom you have invited by formal written correspondence, arrive on time with their assigned dish to pass. Your nephew sneaks near the desert dish, but quickly walks away when you mention that it is being saved until after dinner. You share a meal in which all family members speak respectfully in turn as they share their thoughts on the meaning of Thanksgiving. All foods served at the table can be traced historically to the time of the Pilgrims. You watch the game as a family, cheer in unison for your team. They win.

Highly Effective: The turkey, which has been growing free range in your back yard, comes in your house and jumps in the oven. The guests, who wrote to ask you please be invited to your house, show early with foods to fit all dietary and cultural needs. You watch the game on tape, but only as an video prompt for your family discussion of man's inhumanity to man. Your family plays six degrees of Sir Francis Bacon and is thus able to resolve, once and for all, the issue of whether Oswald acted alone.

Originally posted November 28, 2013

Happy Thanksgiving

I want to wish all the readers of this little blog a joyous and peaceful holiday, free of the stench of reforminess and Charlotte Danielson. I'm sure you have much to be thankful for in your private lives, and of course you know that better than I ever will.

Consider, despite the nonsense swirling around us, stirred by the likes of Shakespeare's witches, they still only have that one eye between all three of them and cannot see what we do. They cannot see the faces of the children looking up at us each and every day. They have no idea what these children need, nor how to give it to them. They look at them and see thousands of dollars in each and every child, and can think only of how to get that money to people like themselves, who need it least.

We stand up for the children, and object when they are subject to endless testing so the reformies can gather baseless data to defame us. We cry out when they are herded into classrooms like sardines, and object when the likes of Eva Moskowitz subjects them to tortures that would rightfully land us on the unemployment line. We object when the governor and the Regents spout nonsense and push spineless legislators into passing it for no good reason.

And when our own union leadership gets down and supports junk science evaluation, mayoral control, Common Core, school closings, charter schools and other things that hurt parents, children and working teachers, we stand up to them too. Maybe we are naive and just not smart enough to understand why we should support things that hurt us and our children.

But most importantly, we're in classrooms helping children each and every day. People who make many times our salaries to oppose or mislead us will never understand or appreciate why that's important. They will never understand what it is to have the appreciation of a kid we've helped with something important to the kid. They will never understand why this is the best job in the world, and no it isn't because of July and/ or August.

But we know. We know when kids lack a stable role model that we are the second best thing they can have. We know that our jobs are important, maybe second only to doctors in importance. We know our value, and it's not because we read it on some rubric-based evaluation telling us whether we're 1, 2, 3 or 4.

So enjoy your time off, enjoy your homes and families, and know that there are many of us, and many public school children, and a whole lot of their parents too, who understand and appreciate what it is we do every day of our working lives. Be thankful for whatever you're thankful for, as will I, and be thankful for them, too. I'm thankful for my readers and I wish every one of you a great year, despite all odds!

Simplicity Itself

I was at a DA meeting when Punchy Mike Mulgrew said something like if you aren't fighting with your principal, you aren't doing your job. Punchy Mike immediately followed up by boasting about his cozy relationship with Chancellor Carmen Fariña. One might infer that he was not precisely practicing what he preached. After all, this is the same Punchy Mike who urged us all to join Twitter but couldn't be bothered doing so himself.

Of course there are times when you have to be adversarial. A young teacher once told me she had an issue with a principal, and her chapter leader told her, "I can't take sides." That's absurd. It's the job of the chapter leader to advocate for members. You take the side of the member, no matter what. You don't necessarily have to agree with the member, but you do the best you can regardless. And of course, principals make mistakes. You have to call them on the mistakes. If you aren't willing to stand up for what's right, you ought to find a job more suited to your particular talents.

Sometimes things are easy. Yesterday someone double-booked the principal's office. An AP booked it for a lunch meeting with some bigshot from the DOE. I booked it for my consultation committee. Now the AP booked it directly with the principal, but I booked it with his secretary. Therefore, my request was valid while the AP's simply was not. I mean, there are plenty of principals who fancy themselves as school leaders, but anyone who actually works in a school and pays attention knows that it's actually the secretary who runs things. When the principal's off at some meeting or other, everything moves along well, but when the secretary is absent, the whole building falls instantly into chaos.

When the AP learned of this egregious error, it was instantly apparent who had the right to the office. We all know where the real levers of power are. The AP hemmed and hawed, contemplating a meeting in the far less grand department office, but I said, "Let me see what I can work out."

I opened negotiations with the principal's secretary, and we were able to move the consultation meeting to Wednesday. Sure, things were tense as we pored over the schedule and tried to find a good time, but we were determined to find a win-win, and that's what we did.

When you do things like that, you hope that when you need something, admin will reciprocate. Unless you're Andrew Cuomo, there's not a whole lot of upside when you insist on being an asshole all the time. The less you do it, the less you expect other people to do it. Sadly not all administrators know that, and it works both ways.

Of course I'm not President of the United Federation of Teachers, so what do I know?

Off With Her Rubric!

When you teach English language learners, particularly when they're rank beginners, you can never be sure how much of what you say the students understand. A typical coping technique when learning a new language is nodding your head and pretending to understand, whether or not you actually do. Different people will do that to different extents, while others will make their best guesses about what you've said and move on the assumption they're correct. Sometimes they are, but not all the time.

So there's a lot of mystery and misunderstanding in my job. One thing I make it a point to do when I teach is to refrain from showing anger when I'm actually angry. That's just not productive. But I'll frequently feign anger and/ or frustration to get attention, and I'll argue with kids who like to argue for pretty much any reason (or even no reason). If they're using English when they do it, it's a pretty good exercise.

A few days ago, a long-lost student returned. She'd been absent for maybe a month, and though I'd had people who spoke her language call her house multiple times I couldn't get a real answer as to where she was. But she had the misfortune to see me in an office that day, and pretty much had no excuse not to show. It was too bad, because she'd have likely done well, you know, had she been here.

At some point, some kid started laughing. I don't remember why. I said, "Listen, this is English class and there will be no enjoyment. Anyone else who has a good time is going to get a zero." This is something I've said before, and most of the kids are used to it. But the student who'd been absent for a long time had not, and she said, exactly, "Oh, you so bad teacher."

Now I didn't know whether she was serious or playing, but it struck me as very funny either way, and I could not stop laughing. This is usually a bad thing, as once you, the teacher, lose your composure, everyone else tends to follow suit. And thus, that day, things fell apart for a few minutes.

As of now, I'm leaning toward believing the girl was making a joke. For one thing, if you were seriously upset with a teacher, would you shout out how bad the teacher was? (Actually, there's probably a large number of teenagers who might do just that, but I don't personally believe this one was among them.)

So here's the question--were they engaged?  What would've happened if a supervisor walked in? A teacher told me the only good way for this story to end would be for a supervisor to walk in just as this was happening. And what does being engaged mean (if you haven't got imminent wedding plans)? What if I distributed 17 decks of cards and told them all to play gin rummy? Wouldn't they be engaged?

I guess it wouldn't earn me Danielson points. But for me, and for all the students who were in that room, I think we were happy to be there at that moment.

Revive NYSUT, Facing Friedrichs, Attacks Working Teacher

We pay a lot of money to NYSUT. It's a great honor, particularly for those of us who have just about no representation whatsoever. As readers of this blog well know, every single UFT representative in NYSUT is bound by loyalty oath to vote any damn way they are told, rank and file be damned.

NYSUT is worried about this blog post. Evidently, NYSUT Executive Vice President Andy Pallotta is all bent out of shape over it. My source reports he got up at a NYSUT board of directors meeting and said he asked the attorney general to file a discrimination complaint about the blogger. My source says Pallotta felt the blog post characterized him as a mobster, or goodfella, or something. Of course the actual blog doesn't even mention Pallotta, but that's not the point. Evidently these bloggers are taking this whole First Amendment thing way too far.

But here's the thing. Whatever Pallotta says, the whole, "Screw you pay me," thing is accurate. It's particularly accurate for members of UFT, its largest contingent, almost a third of total membership. Because of UFT's winner-take-all at large voting system, designed and approved by the Unity monopoly, our money pays the folks at NYSUT to do things like fail to support Zephyr Teachout, not once, but twice. I've heard NYSUT staffers were sent to work for Bill de Blasio's primary opponent, what's his name, the one who said we couldn't afford to give UFT teachers the raise other city workers got, in the Democratic NYC primary. Clearly UFT leadership pushes buttons at NYSUT.

And as if that's not enough there are tons of little locals who pay NYSUT but can't vote. Not everyone has the finances of UFT. NY State is as large as England and there are a whole lot of little locals who just can't finance a weekend at the NY Hilton. But for them it's still, "Screw you, pay me."

Here we are facing Friedrichs, the biggest threat to unionism in my living memory, and our leadership, the same leadership that broke several of the big promises on which it ran, is out trying to stifle free speech among union members.  Maybe I'd better stop saying Pallotta's Revive slate broke its promise to oppose Cuomo. After all, it failed to oppose him in two primaries and one general election. Maybe I'd better stop saying Pallotta's Revive slate failed to oppose Common Core. After all, Karen Magee pretty much said it was Common Core or anarchy. And Mike Mulgrew, their staunchest supporter, says he'll punch your face and push it in the dirt if you lay a paw on his Common Core.

Anyway, if  it's open season, and union leadership wants to go after bloggers, here I am. Give me your worst, fellas. I'm here every day.

Lewis Black on Teachers

Black is not so kind to guidance counselors, based only on his own. I disagree with stereotypes of all kinds, and that certainly qualifies. But listen to what he says about teachers.

A Short Story

Last night I met two Chinese-speaking parents of a shy but happy girl. I told them, after all these weeks, that I've started to see their daughter smile much more frequently. I told them, as I often tell parents, that if their daughter would speak a little more I'd give her a higher grade. They were happy to hear it, but they said their daughter was very shy, even in Chinese.

I was very impressed with Dad, who insisted on speaking English with me, and declined my offers of a translator. I kept telling them about how their daughter seemed to be coming out of her shyness, little by little, and how much her smile meant to me.

The father said something like, "She likes you very much. I will tell her you like her very much too."

There was something great about this. Moments like these make me happy to have this job.

All the reformies in the world can't see or change the real rewards of this job. They place us into ridiculous teams to solve problems we don't have. They make us pore over data to try to improve test scores. But we're not about test scores. We're about children.

For this we are vilified and scorned. For this they attack our tenure and want us at-will employees. For this they attack our unions and try to make them utterly impotent. For this we are judged by nonsense and subject to dismissal for no reason.

There's something horribly wrong with this country. 

Pressure

I have to say this is, and has always been, a high-pressure profession. I don't know how anyone manages to stand in front of 34 teenagers without noticing it. Don't mistake that for a complaint, because it's not. There's really just about nothing I'd rather do, but I've been doing this for a while so it's easier for me.

Some of my younger colleagues are not so sanguine. I regularly hear them being jealous, jealous of me because I've put in more years and can retire. They, of course, ignore the fact that they're maybe thirty years younger than I am because that's not precisely what's bothering them now. What's bothering them now is this--on top of all the pressure already inherent in this gig, there are these do or die Danielson directives. At any moment, someone can walk in, say you suck, and if they say it enough, you're busy pursuing your private interests, e.g. looking for food and shelter.

There aren't really a whole lot of needs more basic than those, and having them hanging over your head is not precisely inspirational. Mulgrew can go on about how there were "only" 700  double ineffectives, but if you're one of them that's little consolation. And even if you aren't one of them, there are a few issues with that line of thought. One is that everyone, and I mean everyone, spends an inordinate amount of time and energy fretting over this. The other, of course, is that this "low" number and others like it are precisely what inspired Andrew Cuomo to sell his even worse evaluation bill to the Heavy Hearts Assembly.

It must be great to get up in front of hundreds of cheering loyalty-oath signers and declare how wonderful everything is. Unfortunately, when you have people crying to you that they only have a few years in and are hoping to make it to twenty so they can get the hell out, it's tough to get up and sing a happy song. Me, I have no words. You can't make someone feel better when they're looking you in the eye and declaring, "Only 137 more days to go."

Sadly, that will only get them through this year, and there are ten or fifteen more to go. I know there are plenty of Americans out there who will say, "Yeah, my job sucks, and my life sucks, so what the hell do I care if your life sucks too?" That's a popular attitude, and simultaneously one of the worst attitudes of which I can even conceive. Now here's the thing. It's one thing to be miserable. That's really your problem. It's quite another to endorse the notion that role models for your children should be miserable. It's kind of a chain reaction.

In our zeal to emphasize test scores, to rate teachers by junk science, to open charters and close public schools, we've neglected to examine the relative happiness or lack thereof in our children.  Maybe I'm not as sophisticated as those who preach rigor and grit, but that's kind of important to me. I don't want my classroom to be a source of rigor. I want it to be a source of joy. If I can find joy in myself and share it with the children while teaching English they will learn more than just English. They will learn to love English. Maybe they will even learn to love life. Who knows?

Now I haven't got a rubric or formula to precisely express that, but having seen many rubrics and silver bullets over the year, I've got little faith in them.  I've got a lot of faith in happy children. I don't think it would be all that terrible if we tried to create happy teachers to inspire them, even if they miss a close reading here or there.

The Specter of Friedrichs Haunts Mike Mulgrew

Michael Mulgrew sent us an email the other day, telling us we needed to inform our members of the seriousness of Friedrichs. This was not really news to me, and I've been trying to do that for some time now. Of course I follow the news and I don't take this threat lightly. Those of us who are passionate about education and unionism have understood this from the beginning. We've  known we're under frontal assault and didn't need to wait for Mulgrew to tell us.

Of course, when you get an email from Mulgrew, whose caucus has held pretty much absolute control over the union since its inception, you have to question things. Here's the statement I had to question:

Unity among UFT members is essential in the face of this threat.

There's that odd choice of words. Why did he have to use the name of his caucus in that statement? Is it coincidence?

And then there's his odd niceness campaign at the DA, largely consisting of Mulgrew telling us how nice he is. He fails to personally insult people from the podium. He says something nice about Mindy Rosier. Then he briefly lapses back into character and suggests Jonathan Halabi is an anarchist for wanting to support ATRs.

Sadly, we've heard this song before, ad nauseum. Mulgrew constantly reminds us of how bad Bloomberg was. And I can't help but recall several Unity oath-signers coming around here telling me how I needed to stop criticizing leadership and face the common enemy, Mike Bloomberg. It's the same thing now with Friedrichs. Now, we are instructed not to dissent because of Friedrichs. There is never a good time to disagree with the all-knowing Unity Caucus, and if they had enough patronage to spread around they'd probably try to get all of us to sign the loyalty oath.

But even as Mulgrew speaks of togetherness, his hand-picked pawns at NYSUT spew vitriol over heroic independent-minded unionist Beth Dimino. They can't buy her (and they've certainly tried), so they attack her. They've attacked me too. Someone needs to tell Michael Mulgrew and BFFs that this is a two-way street. It's not enough for Mulgrew to stand in front of us and proclaim how nice he thinks he is. We have not drunk the Kool-Aid and we are not fools.

Mulgrew's niceness campaign opened up right on the heels of his throwing those who distribute policical union literature outside the building. Like Norm Scott frequently advises, we watch what they do, not what they say. The problem with those at the head of the Unity machine is they're accustomed to selling things to people who are already bought and paid for. They have no idea what argument is and they have no idea what persuasion entails. On multiple occasions, dim bulbs from Unity have tried to bully me into submission. You must do this and you must agree with that.

They have no response when I ask what they're gonna do if I don't do this or that. Are they gonna expel me from the Unity Caucus? Take me off the patronage mill? Do your worst, fellas.

You don't buy people off, demand blind loyalty no matter what, and end up with the best people. That's a good part of why we've bought into a culture of appeasement, and a good reason why our enemies are so emboldened. It's why fewer than 20% of working teachers think voting in union elections is worth their time, why rank and file is so poorly mobilized, why we've moved so far backward, and why we face moving further still in that direction.

We've seen this coming. We've watched every step of the way, with every concession Mike Mulgrew and his Unity army gave away. We oppose Friedrichs as much as anyone, perhaps more. But Mulgrew and company have ignored us every step of the way. It's pretty cheeky for them to now demand we forget what brought us here.

DA Takeaway November 2015

The most striking thing about this month's DA, in retrospect, is the absolute nonsense voiced by UFT President Michael Mulgrew at its opening. I had no idea why Mulgrew was talking about whether or not people could leaflet inside or out of UFT offices. But he went into detail about how outer borough offices occupied rented space, and the Manhattan building was owned by the union. Given that, he said, it was understandable that indoor leafleting was permitted only at 52 Broadway.

Yet here is a video taken by Norm Scott showing people actively blocking him from leafleting. Norm repeatedly asks who sent these people, and they repeatedly evade answering him. Norm points out that the union owns the building and that he's paid dues for 45 years. So why have people been sent to throw him out of the building that we own? And who the hell sent those people, if not Michael Mulgrew? If he is not in control of his own people, who is?

Mulgrew is clearly trying to overcome his image as autocratic, sarcastic, and disrespectful of any opinions failing to mirror his own. In fact, he himself kept remarking on how nice he is. He once again joked about how he restrained himself from using bad language, a joke he evidently finds so hilarious it bears repeating on a monthly basis. He made a point of commenting on how Mindy Rosier was a great presence in social media, which of course she is. Yet that only underlines the hypocrisy of the man who urges UFT members to get on Twitter but won't do so himself.

Bogeyman Michael Bloomberg, who we failed to oppose in two elections, is brought up. Aren't we better off without him? Well of course we are, but if we hadn't caved to him on mayoral control, on the ATR, and on the entire grab bag of goodies we granted him in 2005, we'd be better off yet. It's time to face up to our current enemies--Andrew Cuomo, who we also failed to oppose on multiple occasions, and MaryEllen Elia, who enabled the union-bsuting being imposed on our brothers and sisters in Buffalo. It's time for Mulgrew to explain why the hell he thanked the Heavy Hearts Assembly for approving the law that made this happen.

Self-proclaimed nice Mulgrew again ridiculed his opponents, saying last year everyone was "jumping up and down." In retrospect, there was a lot to jump about. Look at Buffalo teachers facing receivership. Look at them facing the abrogation of collective bargaining agreements. Look at them facing more work for less pay and even potential dismissal. Mulgrew spoke of how bogeyman Bloomberg wanted to fire ATRs and render us at-will employees. Yet he thanked the Heavy Hearts for passing a bill that does exactly the same thing.

It was clear to his MORE/ NA opponent, Jia Lee, months ago that MaryEllen Elia was not our friend. That's why she brought a resolution urging we express our disapproval. But UFT Unity, ever seeking a seat at the table where we are the dinner, shot it down.

Most of the resolutions were pretty much Mom and Apple Pie, and few stood against them. But on the 5 train back, James Eterno mentioned he was concerned about any bill that says all kids will be literate by second grade. Of course no one opposes literacy. But the 100% figure is problematic, and we seem to have learned nothing from the failed NCLB. Kids have all sorts of differences, including learning disabilities and interrupted formal education, and given that, 100% is not a reasonable goal.

And while Jonathan Halabi himself has commented about it on this blog, I have to say I was a little shocked to see Mulgrew rule him out of order for speaking up for ATR teachers. Mulgrew took it a step further, likening Jonathan's proposal to anarchy. Personally, I'm not an anarchist, but I am and have been troubled by the top-down nature of UFT leadership. I always found it amazing they could muster the audacity to criticize bogeyman Bloomberg for being exactly the same as they are. That, of course, is not to even mention the fact that every single one of our so-called delegates in NYSUT and AFT has signed a loyalty oath to represent leadership rather than membership.

Ruling out free thought has brought us precisely to this crossroad. 

My "Real Discussion" on Test-Based Teacher Evaluations

At the November Delegate meeting, President Mulgrew noted that there needs to be a "real discussion" on teacher evaluations.  He asked if teachers really want to return to evaluations based solely upon the observation of principals.  Under the new system, fewer teachers receive the near equivalent of the old U, an ineffective rating.

The President noted that no standardized test should be used solely to evaluate teachers.  The tests must have validity in informing instruction and aiding individual students.  He also noted that student learning is not just a test.

There are some positives.  Tests no longer seem to be touted as the key to civil rights equality for minorities.  That is a blessing.  If my bottom line was data, I might say the new system, with fewer failing teachers, is an improvement.  If I had a supervisor with a personal vendetta against me, I would probably wish 100% of my evaluations were based upon standardized assessments.

Having neither, I can safely say I abhor test-based evaluations of teachers.  I do not wish to teach to standardized tests.  For part of my career, these tests have watered down the curriculum.  The higher the stakes of these tests, the more teachers are forced to spend good class time in nearly meaningless prep.  In the case of the Common Core, the tests target a generation of other people's children for failure.  I would not wish to teach to these tests either.

Standardized tests have nothing to do with my reasons for entering the profession of teaching.  They have nothing to do with making learning interesting to students.  They kill creativity.  They push current issues aside.  They rank people according to questions that will, ultimately, have little relevance for the real world.

If teaching remains focused on testing, teachers are nothing more than at-will employees of Stanley Kaplan.  All that's needed to fire more teachers are harder, trickier or less valid tests.  There is no objectivity in testing, only a false veneer.  Testing could turn teaching into a profession one hardly recognizes anymore.  How many intelligent and independently-minded individuals will want to teach to someone else's idea of a perfect test?

This is my "real discussion."  You are free to agree or disagree.  There's no one answer, as on a standardized test; but, remember, there's a lot riding on the answer.  We are redefining a profession.  We are creating a new breed of teacher.

And, unfortunately, we may be fostering far fewer creative children.

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

I Ain't Gonna Work on Mulgrew's Farm No More

 With apologies to Bob Dylan

I ain't gonna work on Mulgrew's farm no more,
No, I ain't gonna work on Mulgrew's farm no more.
He don't like the slogan,
You got on your shirt,
So he punches your face and pushes it in the dirt,
He's so worked up about that Common Core,
I ain't gonna work on Mulgrew's farm no more.

I ain't gonna work for Leroy Barr no more,
No, I ain't gonna work for Leroy Barr no more.
He looks you in your face, says get out on that floor,
Says vote the way I say or you won't have that job no more,
Then he laughs as we hightail it out the door,
Oh, I ain't gonna work for Leroy Barr no more.

I ain't gonna boo at Lauren Cohen no more,
Well, I ain't gonna boo at Lauren Cohen no more.
Well she gets up on that platform, and what she says is true,
And we make lots of noise until they tell us not to boo,
It's a shame the way we bully from the floor,
I ain't gonna boo at Lauren Cohen no more.

I ain't gonna sign that loyalty oath no more,
Oh, I ain't gonna sign that loyalty oath no more.
You put on a tie, you put on a coat,
They tell you where to sit and they tell you how to vote,
Integrity or trips it's either or,
Oh, I ain't gonna sign that loyalty oath no more.

I ain't gonna go on no free trips no more,
No, I ain't gonna go on no free trips no more,
They make me go there, they make me go here,
When Gates gets on the stage, they order us to cheer,
We vote for stuff and no one knows what for,
I ain't gonna go on no free trips no more.

I ain't gonna sit here on my hands no more,
No, I ain't gonna sit here on my hands no more.
They give you a contract, they give you a few beers,
They give you a raise that you don't see for five whole years,
You ask them why and they show you the door.
I ain't gonna sit here on my hands no more.