Actually, There IS Free Lunch

That's true for NYC's schoolchildren. No more getting free lunch forms and letting all your friends know your home income is below poverty level. No more paying half price and letting them know you're close to it.

This poses a problem for my school, and I presume, a whole lot of others. Why bother filling out a lunch form if lunch is free anyway? Will there even be one, now that it makes no difference? And what are we going to do about Title One funds, assuming Betsy DeVos doesn't donate them to her good friends at Walmart?

The article says 75% of city students were eligible for free lunch. Up until now, Title One has been distributed school by school. I don't recall offhand the percentage our school needs to hit to receive it, but it seems like around 60%. In Staten Island it's closer to 40%. It's ridiculous that children in Queens have a higher threshold than children in Staten Island.. Evidently there's less poverty in SI somehow, so their schools might not qualify otherwise.

I've seen a lot written about so-called Fair Student Funding. Aside from making principals have to think twice about hiring experienced teachers, it has another major drawback. That is the fact that the city does not issue many schools funding it calls "fair." Schools get varying percentages of it, which by its own definition is unfair.

I know that schools that don't get Title One are struggling to keep up. They don't have enough teachers to keep up with exploding class sizes. In our building, being Title One, we probably have enough money, but we haven't got any space. In any case, without Title One, we'd probably need to excess teachers and then we wouldn't have enough personnel. It's a ridiculous situation.

The city is a huge district, with all sorts of rules we have to follow. We have not only the UFT Contract, but all sorts of Chancellor's Regulations. (Unless of course, you're a charter, in which case you take the money and do any damn thing you want with it.) A whole lot of things are centralized. Yet every year, the administration of our school puts an inordinate amount of energy in collecting lunch forms. We've made Title One by the skin of our teeth the last few years.

It boggles my mind that we need to find a higher percentage of students than other boroughs. How can aid revolve around which borough you reside in? Why on earth do SI kids need help more than Queens kids? Why on earth are there different thresholds in different boroughs? I recall Queens being the highest. What possible rationale could there be for Queens students getting effectively less support?

It's great that the city is giving free lunch to all children. But if they're going to do that, they ought to distribute Title One equally as well. The city gets a big federal grant, and who knows what it does with undistributed funds? All city schools need all the help they can get, and it's time we dropped the insane formulas.

If all city kids need free lunch, they all need funding too. It's time to take another look at "Fair Student Funding," another look at Title One,  and it's time to find a system that works for New York City, rather than just Bloomberg's held-over thugs.

Also, Mayor de Blasio, it's well past time you showed all of Bloomberg's leftovers the door.

I'm off today...

...but you can read a piece I wrote about the ATR over at Diane Ravitch's Blog.

Albany Doubles Down on Stupid

Yesterday I taught an advanced ESL class for the first time in a few years. Because words liked "advanced" are too easily understood, the outstanding thinkers in Albany now call them "transitioning." Naturally, I'm quite impressed. I had the students write a diagnostic essay. These are students who, according to the geniuses in Albany, ought to be performing around the same level as native English speakers.

I read all of the essays. Two of them were only two sentences, basically explaining to me that they either couldn't or didn't write. Fully half of them did not use past tense at all, and definitely should have. A few of them were pretty good. None were near native and all need remediation to get there.

In our school, we pair ESL with English. I'm certified in both, so I don't need a co-teacher. My inclination for these kids before I met them was to cover a few novels. However, having read their work, I'm thinking more about short stories and intermediate ESL instruction. That is, except for those who couldn't produce more than two sentences. They are beginners, despite what the very expensive corporate-produced NYSESLAT exam says.

And by the way, the NYSESLAT test is not only total crap; it's also the test by which ESL teachers are rated. To my way of thinking, it's a crap shoot. While it's true that near-beginners are testing advanced this year, it doesn't mean that will happen next year. So even though a few of my beginners from last year ended up in this class, I'm not patting myself on the back just yet.

Here's another interesting thing about my two advanced classes--because of Part 154, the students cannot be more than one grade apart. Therefore my period one class has three students, and my period two class has 34. I wasn't aware of that at first, and I was going to ask that some of the period 2 kids be moved to period one. That way I could have two reasonably sized classes and give decent attention to all students.

There's another factor here. Any English teacher could take the twelve magical ESL credits and teach this class, the same as me. I am not persuaded that these English teachers would see what I do. I am not persuaded they will have the resources I do. They most certainly won't have the experience I do. Most of them have never taught ESL. Sadly, direct instruction in ESL is precisely what these students need.

We've heard plenty about differentiating education. Some crazy supervisors have even requested multiple lesson plans within the same class. But the big move in Part 154 is away from differentiation where it is most needed. The idea is, let's forget, to the largest extent possible, that newcomers have different language needs than native speakers. Let's just give them the same stuff we give to the American kids and hope for the best.

Make no mistake, this is moving backwards. It's close to the same level of ignorance we showed when we gave IQ tests in English to newcomers and labeled them stupid, or worse. The newcomers weren't stupid, and they aren't stupid now. The only stupid around here is coming from Albany, and also us if we believe in their policies.

It's time to take a giant step away from the overpriced nonsense that passes for testing in NY State. And it's time to rewrite, reform, and remake Part 154 from the ground up.

Co-Teaching and its Discontents

Here's a piece on how to make co-teaching work. It has some great suggestions, and offers multiple models on how co-teaching can work. It also stresses that co-teachers are equals in the classroom. That's an important point, but there are others.

Full disclosure--I co-taught last year and it was a great experience. We didn't really try to follow any particular model. We just kind of kept our eyes on one another. As chapter leader I'd get pulled out of class for various reasons, but I had absolute confidence that my students were in good hands when I was gone. Our only conflict was that I tend to work very fast, and my co-teacher insisted on thinking things through. We had a few arguments over that, but nothing serious.

I've been drawn into multiple co-teaching disasters. Once, two teachers absolutely could not abide one another. They were told to pick one rep each to negotiate how to break the class into two groups, each led by one teacher alone. That is a model, of course, but the feelings these teachers had for one another were palpable. I was one rep, and I worked with the other. We kind of looked at the records of each students and took turns picking which kids would go with which teacher.

One problem is that often co-teachers have no time to plan together. Administrators don't tend to consider that when scheduling. How do you deal with that? In fact, if the teachers really dislike one another, working together more just makes things worse. In the case of the two teachers who hated one another, an AP instructed them to plan together each and every day as part of their C6 assignment. It became unbearable and led to irrevocable differences.

Another problem is the thought processes that go into making teams. I was lucky, because my AP specifically selected a teacher I knew and respected. That isn't always the case. Some pairs are clearly made at random. It won't surprise anyone to hear that these pairings work, at best, randomly. Sometimes they're disastrous. You never know.

Training is also an issue. Most of the time it goes like this. "You and you are teaching together. Good luck with that." I've been to one training session on co-teaching. I remember it because the woman who ran it spent a lot of time reading PowerPoints. She covered a few of the groupings the article mentioned. For me, it was easier to just read the article. I guess some people prefer having things read to them, though I can't think of any over the age of four.

And then there's the equality thing. Part 154 has decreed that ESL teachers will no longer teach ESL, but will instead support students in English, science, or social studies teachers. In the time that American-born students take to learn about the Magna Carta, the ESL teachers are supposed to magically have them learn English, concurrently of course, because God forbid we should just teach them English when they don't know it. Part 154 says the English language is not really a subject, and everyone knows that anything said in Albany must be Absolute Truth.

Make no mistake, you are not an equal when you are with a specialist in another subject area. You don't set the curriculum and you don't set the agenda. And your job, magically making them learn English while someone else teaches history, is fundamentally impossible. The other alternative is to be dually licenced, and be expected to teach both English and social studies, another impossibility.

Models are helpful but not a requirement. Being mindful is more important. An even more important factor, for my co-teacher and I, was that the AP put us together because she knew we respected one another. I have seen many pairings in which factors like that were not considered. You and you, go teach together. No prep, no questions, no nothing.

You're not both available. OK, you have two co-teachers. And you, you have three co-teachers. I've seen that too. Putting two people together for such a long time is a delicate thing. The biggest problem I've seen is people being paired at random.

Not quite state of the art, if you ask me. 

Being on the Wrong Side of the PD

It's the first day of school and I'm going to be very busy. Among a whole lot of other things, I'm giving a PD, for the first time ever, and I'm pretty nervous about it. Teachers are a tough audience. Kids are a tough audience, but we're worse. Of course, that's not all our fault.

One of my pet peeves is being forced to listen to someone read a PowerPoint. For goodness sake, just hand it to me, let me look at it, or something. I can read it a lot faster than you can read it aloud. And I don't like to brag, but I've been speaking English since I was a baby. I do it so much, in fact, that I know people who wish I would stop. This notwithstanding, I've been able to read since I was in first grade, and that was a while back.

Then there are the meetings about lateness. Kids shouldn't be late. It's bad if they're late. Tell them not to be late. Lateness will affect their grades. Except please pass everyone anyway, but make them believe that won't happen if they're late. It's not about reality, it's about what they believe.

Then there's the new thing. This year, we've discovered this new way to teach. It's the only way to teach, and anyone who doesn't teach that way is doing it wrong. What? What about portfolios? Portfolios are out. Yes I know I said last year that every student must have a portfolio, but we're just not doing that anymore. Well yes I know I said they were absolutely essential, but they aren't, and this thing is.

Or maybe it's the email that morphed into a meeting. From now on homework will only count 15%. Last year we counted it 20%, but this year it's 15%. That's 5% less than 15%. 20% is 5% more than 15%. So please count homework 15%. That doesn't mean 16%. And it doesn't mean 14%. Let me reiterate, and then we'll discuss it. But no matter what we discuss it's gonna be 15%. Let's review.

Sometimes it's a private company that's found the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything. If you only use this Thing in class, you will be highly effective. That's right. Just stand there, show them the Thing, and talk about the Thing. Explain to them that you're one of the first schools in the city using the Thing, and that they're very lucky to have it. After all, the person who invented the Thing went to Harvard, so it must be a really good Thing. Now let's talk about how to make the Thing your Thing.

There's the Revolutionary Computer Program, the one that makes all others obsolete. Once you have this in your classroom, teaching will be a walk in the park. Your students will be overjoyed to get out of bed at 5 AM and spend 90 minutes on a train coming to your class. And you won't have to do any work because the Revolutionary Computer Program will do it for you. Of course last year's Revolutionary Computer Program didn't work out even though it cost a million dollars, but this time it's gonna really work.

Almost every person I face tomorrow will have been to each and every one of these meetings, and will therefore be expecting more of the same. The best I can hope for is that they give me a small listen before they start playing Words with Friends.

There's some karmic justice here, though. I may have been just a bit critical of one or two people who gave PD. It never occurred to me that I'd one day be in their shoes. I'll make sure I wear the right shoes tomorrow. 

Wish me luck.

Startup Tips

I Wish Someone Had Told Me

Practical suggestions were few and far between when I started out. I was an English teacher, with an AP who spent hours describing the difference between an “aim” and an “instructional objective.” To this day, I haven’t the slightest notion what she was talking about. She also spent a good deal of time describing the trials and tribulations of her cooking projects, and other utterly useless information.

Neither she nor any teacher of education ever advised me on classroom control. The standing platitude was “A good lesson plan is the best way to control a class,” but I no longer believe that. I think a good lesson plan is the best thing to have after you control the class.

I also think a good lesson plan need not be written at all, as long as you know what you’re doing. If you don’t, neither the lesson plan nor the aim will be much help. (Note--neither the DOE nor your supervisor accepts that, so have a lesson plan available anyway. I do.)

The best trick, and it’s not much of a trick at all, is frequent home contact. It’s true that not all parents will be helpful, but I’ve found most of them to be. When kids know reports of their classroom behavior will reach their homes, they tend to save the acting out for your lazier colleagues—the ones who find it too inconvenient to call. You are not being "mean" or petty--you're doing your job, and probably helping the kid. If you want to really make a point, make a dozen calls after the first day of class. Or do it the day before a week-long vacation.

Now you could certainly send that ill-mannered kid to the dean, to your AP, to the guidance counselor, or any number of places. But when you do that, you’re sending a clear message that you cannot deal with that kid—he or she is just too much for you. You’ve already lost.

And what is that dean going to do anyway? Lecture the child? Call the home? Why not do it yourself?

You need to be positive when you call. Politely introduce yourself and say this:

“I’m very concerned about _______________. ___________ is a very bright kid. That’s why I’m shocked at these grades: 50, 14, 0, 12, and 43 (or whatever). I’d really like __________ to pass the class, and I know you would too.”

I’ve yet to encounter the parent who says no, my kids are stupid, and I don’t want them to pass.

“Also, I’ve noticed that ___________ is a leader. For example, every time ___________ (describe objectionable behavior here) or says (quote exact words here—always immediately write objectionable statements) many other students want to do/say that too.”

"I'm also concerned because ________ was absent on (insert dates here) and late (insert dates and lengths here).

I certainly hope you will give _________ some good advice so ___________ can pass the class.”

If the kid’s parents speak a foreign language you don’t know, find someone else who also speaks it, and write down what you want that person to tell the parent.

If you’re lucky enough to have a phone in your room, next time you have a test, get on the phone in front of your class and call the homes of the kids who aren’t there. Express concern and ask where they are. If the kid is cutting, it will be a while before that happens again. If the kid is sick, thank the parent and wish for a speedy recovery.

The kids in your class will think twice about giving you a hard time.

Kids test you all the time. It’s hard not to lose your temper, but it’s a terrible loss for you if you do. When kids know you will call their homes, they will be far less likely to disrupt your class. The minutes you spend making calls are a very minor inconvenience compared to having a disruptive class.

If you’re fortunate enough to have a reasonable and supportive AP, God bless you. If not, like many teachers, you’ll just have to learn to take care of yourself. If you really like kids, if you really know your subject, and if you really want to teach, you’ll get the hang of it.

But make those phone calls. The longer you do it, the more kids will know it, and the fewer calls you’ll have to make.

Your AP, whether good, bad, or indifferent, will certainly appreciate having fewer discipline problems from you. More importantly, you might spend less time dealing with discipline problems, and more helping all those kids in your room.

Originally posted June 5, 2005

See also:

Ms. Cornelius with everything they forgot (or more likely, never knew about) at ed. school.   Here's something from Miss Malarkey. And whatever you do, don't forget Miss Eyre's excellent series on what no one will tell you about working for the DoE.

Reformy Chalkbeat Can't See a Public School

You have to see the headline here--After Blasting Success Board Chair Chancellor Rosa to Visit Success Academy on the First Day of School. Over at reformy Chalkbeat, it's Moskowitz now, Moskowitz later, and Moskowitz all the time, because that's what's important over there. Here's the thing--PS 55 is mentioned in passing:

“Chancellor Rosa selected two schools to visit in her hometown community in the Bronx, P.S. 55 and Bronx [Success] Academy 2, which are co-located in the same building,” said department spokeswoman Emily DeSantis. “These schools collaborate to provide the best learning environment possible for students in the school community. As chancellor of the Board of Regents, it is Chancellor Rosa’s duty to serve in the best interest of all schoolchildren.”

 That's a quote, of course. After that, the reporter goes back the Chalbeat beat--everything you ever wanted to know about the Moskowitz Academy. They rehash recent history, and fill us in on everything we read over the last two weeks. The writer says not one word about PS/ CS 55. For all we know from reading the article, it may as well be a lamppost. 

But I know for a fact that this is a very special school with a unique and activist principal. I met PS 55 principal Luis E. Torres at Fordham when we were on a panel together. I didn't agree with everything he said (what with his being a principal and all), but it was quite clear to everyone in the room that Torres was a passionate educator willing to go the extra mile for the students he served.

Torres has been principal since 2004, and seems to have turned his school around without resorting to the endless test prep that characterizes Moskowitz Academies. Torres runs a public school and you won't see kids there peeing their pants because they're fearful of abandoning test prep. You see, in public schools, they consider denying basic human needs to constitute corporal punishment. (Of course, Chancellor's Regulations don't apply in Moskowitz Academies. They're public schools only in the sense that they take public money.)

I'm pretty sure that Torres doesn't simply toss kids out when they don't pass tests. For one thing, he seems to have been underestimated when he was a kid. Some counselor told him he wasn't college material. I cannot imagine that Torres, after having made a career of proving the counselor wrong, would treat kids the way that counselor treated him. Also, what with his school being public and all, he can't make up "got to go" lists.

I'm not a professional reporter. I'm just a lowly schoolteacher. So ask yourself this--how come I know about Luis E. Torres and Chalkbeat doesn't? Isn't it their job to know whether the school has a health, wellness and learning center, for example? Shouldn't they know if he won awards? I'm absolutely sure that Torres has done a whole lot of things I don't know about. But here's the thing--I did five minutes of research and I know more than Chalkbeat does.

If you read the Chalkbeat piece, you'd probably mistake PS 55 for a 99 cent store, or a laundromat, or something. I mean, it isn't a charter school so why bother doing even the most cursory research on it? And really, what's the difference between Luis E. Torres and Iggy Wochuck? You never heard of Iggy Wochuck? Well, reformy Chalkbeat has never heard of Luis E. Torres.

By focusing on charters and ignoring what's great in public schools, Chalkbeat ignores the vast majority of what's going on in New York City education. The writer goes to Moskowitz for a quote, but doesn't bother speaking to Torres. It's all about Eva over at Chalkbeat World.

I don't speak for Chancellor Rosa, and I can't read her mind. But what about this--could it be that she wishes to see PS 55, it happens to be in the same building as the Moskowitz Academy, and she's therefore visiting that too? I really don't know, but it's just as possible as any other explanation.

If you relied on Chalkbeat for education information, that thought would never cross your mind.

Physical Education Gets Short Shrift in NY

The Daily News has a piece today on how many schools aren't meeting minimum PE  requirements. I'm a little surprised. Minimum PE requirements in NY State are pathetic. For most of my career, students had PE one period per day. A lot of them would be off one day to go to lab. That's no longer the case in my school and others.

A few years ago, the geniuses in Albany gave an alternate formula that required only 90 minutes a week for gym. So many schools went with giving a 3-2 program, giving gym every other day alternating with some other subject. In my school, these subjects have included health, art, music and enrichment in social studies. It's a troubling trend.

First, despite all the crap you hear and read about gym teachers, it's pretty clear that physical activity is something we need more of in the United States. Our diets are among the worst in the world, if not the worst in the world. Other countries are beginning to suffer from obesity just as we do, and that's only because our national treasures, McDonald's and KFC, are replicated everywhere.

It's remarkable that in the face of such issues NY State sees fit to diminish PE and health rather than expand it. But that's pretty much to be expected when the only thing of importance is test scores. That's underlined by our standards, the much despised Common Core. This has caused 20% of students to boycott tests for the last three years. Regrettably, the geniuses in Albany have chosen to respond to this by renaming the standards, leaving us the same old crap, and hoping that no one notices.

I guess if you're working in Albany, you have priorities. What they are I have no idea. If the physical well-being of school children isn't paramount, there must be something that inspires your decision. Lobbyists? Bags full of cash? Opium dreams? It really could be anything. Maybe PE is flawed in its current form. I don't know. It's been a long time since I was in a gym class. If there are flaws, slashing it in half is probably not the optimal improvement.

Let's turn from negative effects on students and look at this from a teacher point of view. All of us are facing multiple observations based on the Danielson rubric. It's ironic that you have supervisors lecturing you on how you need to differentiate when we are all judged in exactly the same way. It's a little stupid too, actually.  Consider that gym teachers are somehow supposed to ask penetrating questions while students are playing volleyball. I mean, it's an absurd expectation, and when you consider that there's a 40-minute period less time to dress and undress, when are the kids supposed to play?

Consider also that PE classes run as high as 50, assuming city class size rules are even followed. This means that gym teachers have 500 students a week. How are they even supposed to learn student names, let alone form relationships with them? To me, that's a really important part of teaching, more important than tests. I don't know about you, but I remember a lot of students. I don't recall what grades they got on standardized tests, or even my own.

What message do students take when they see you only on Tuesdays and Thursdays? How is that message reinforced when the teacher struggles to remember who you are? And when we add classes like music, art and health to the mix, what are we telling our students about those subjects?

Hey, it's nice that you can get a 4 on some standardized test. But when you drop dead at 54 of a massive coronary while chomping that double cheese Whopper, will that be any consolation? Do we serve kids well while ignoring their health?

The geniuses in Albany think so, and that should be good enough for anyone.

UFT, APPR, and the New Paradigm

Every week or so I get an email from a UFT rep whose job is organizing. I guess that's why his newsletter is called The Organizer. I'm urged to share it with my staff, but I prefer to write my own. It has a lot of recurring features, so it tends to be repetitive. I usually don't find anything worth sharing.

This week, though, it had something that opened my eyes just a little. That was a fairly impressive feat since I opened my laptop at around six AM. I expected to just scroll down and close the thing. But there it was, and it had me up and blogging almost involuntarily.

I was pretty surprised to see this piece from a NYSUT email included in The Organizer:

State test scores released this week are meaningless.

They don't count for students or teachers. They're derived from a broken testing system. They're rooted in standards that are no longer being taught. And they're the foundation of a totally discredited teacher evaluation system.

Take action now at the NYSUT Member Action Center to pledge to fight to repeal APPR!

It goes on, but you get the gist. Of course I don't disagree about APPR. I signed the linked petition and I recommend you do too. I'm just surprised at the UFT's willingness to take absolutely any position at any time, with no regard whatsoever for past positions. Am I the only one who remembers what a proud deed it was when we got our first junk science system, and how Mulgrew himself had helped write the law? Am I the only one who remembers hearing how smart it was to get the whole thing enshrined in law?

Of course, that argument was no longer so popular when Andrew Cuomo and the Heavy Hearted Assembly redid the whole thing a year later. Cuomo said his own brainchild was "baloney" because not enough teachers got bad ratings. We needed to rate more teachers badly. That was Cuomo's rationale for pushing the new system.

So they changed it. The UFT argument then became the matrix. The matrix is gonna make everything better because it's gonna make it tough to get an ineffective rating, unless of course you do get an ineffective rating. Then we'll all try to look the other way and pretend it didn't happen, I suppose.

In any case, I've opposed APPR since its inception. I'm in good company, including Diane Ravitch, Leonie Haimson, and the American Statistical Association, just to mention a few. Yet when I objected to it at chapter leader meetings, I was criticized and ridiculed. I was overreacting. I was Chicken Little. I'm trying to recall how many times I've heard about how few people got bad ratings, and how the system was therefore an improvement. I've heard it from UFT leadership and school leadership.

Of course, very shortly thereafter I'd get to hear face to face from the people who got bad ratings. You won't be surprised to hear that they failed to see the wonder and beauty of this system. Now there is a new wrinkle that I've heard Mulgrew speak of. It's not value-added, but rather showing student progress. We'll work out ways to do this, via portfolios or something.

It won't surprise you to hear that I've asked people who study these things, and they've told me there is no research whatsoever to support these ideas for rating teachers. In fact, I know of no studies whatsoever saying anything about it at all. Yet I'm regularly told at the DA and elsewhere that it's a big improvement. I've also heard, from Mulgrew on down, that anyone who opposes APPR supports total control for the principal.

That's what you call a black and white fallacy--it suggests there is only one alternative to this proposal. Beyond that, it fails to acknowledge the pernicious nature of this system, to wit, allowing the burden of proof to be on the teacher at the 3020a hearing. That's one more feature of the system UFT leadership has been pushing as the best thing since sliced bread--not the feature, of course. They generally fail to acknowledge it, although one UFT Unity member on Twitter insisted that gave members more control. This is the same guy who got up and insisted he spoke to two random ATRs  in one day who loved the new incentive.

There has been a little space between NYSUT and UFT on this issue. For example, when the Mulgrew-endorsed toppling of Richard Iannuzzi as NYSUT President happened, Andrew Pallotta's Revive NYSUT claimed to oppose APPR. They blamed Iannuzzi for it. Though he did it together with Mulgrew, they never, ever criticized Mulgrew, nor did they vocally oppose it at inception. The hypocrisy was palpable.

Now I'm curious about this thing we're gonna do next year, if there is ever an agreement. Will there be portfolios and who knows what else in the future of NYC schools? To me, it seems like a whole lot of extra paperwork for already overburdened teachers. This would not be my preferred course of action with Janus hanging over our heads.

The APPR system has left teacher morale lower than its been at any point since I began over thirty years ago. Thus far, every so-called improvement has failed to improve anything. I'm not sure that the NYSUT position precisely mirrors that of UFT leadership.

Nonetheless, it takes a whole lot of chutzpah to simply take something you've consistently supported and rationalized, then call it useless. It's particularly egregious when you offer absolutely no explanation as to why you've changed your mind.

How are you supposed to trust people who do things like that?

On Awakening the Democrats

Here's Vice-President Mike Pence speaking against aid for Katrina, back when he was a lowly Congressman. Of course Senator Ted Cruz opposed aid for victims of Sandy, while demanding help for Texas right now. Of course we should and need to help Texas, and we need to help all afflicted areas of our country, if indeed that's what it is.

You won't see Chuck Shumer standing up and saying screw Texas any time soon. So there are still fundamental differences between Democrats and Republicans. After Sandy, we saw the oddest thing--Obama and Christie standing together for a common cause. While that was important, it probably helped Christie win reelection too. There are always those unintended consequences.

Meanwhile the Republican standard bearer, Donald J. Trump, has gone to Texas. He went wearing a hat he sells on his website for forty bucks. I mean, you'll see product placement on TV and films, so why shouldn't the President of the United States sell his campaign stuff while on the job? And why shouldn't he treat a disaster like a campaign rally, shouting, "What a turnout," as though the crowd were in Nuremberg waiting to see him?

The Democrats suck, but as far as I can tell they're the only game in town. I've voted for Green candidates, twice against Cuomo, and once against Obama. Though I wasn't crazy for Hillary, I voted for her against Trump. He's absolutely odious, and manages to make some of his creepy colleagues look better by comparison. It was a vicious campaign cycle, and some Jill Stein supporters unfriended me on Facebook to show their displeasure. I can live with that, though. She wasn't gonna be President in any case.

It's important for us to pressure Democrats to wake up with a message that resonates with people. Hillary's message, that she was not Donald Trump, was enough to get my vote but not enough for the rest of the country. With an Electoral College, voting rules that discourage voting, and even foreign interference we basically face a rigged election. Personally, I don't see a third party working nationally in modern American politics.

Bernie Sanders had the right message, and still does.  The answer, for Americans, is not endless was a la 1984. It's not make nice with the nazis and hope they vote for you. The answer is universal healh care. It's a living wage. It's college education for everyone who wants it. It's public education, not business style, not private, and quality for all. A lot of other countries go this way and I don't know of any of them looking to reverse course.

And it's on us, as teachers, as unionists, as citizens, to move the Democratic party toward that. I'd love to see a Labor Party. I'd vote on that line if there were one. I like the idea of Working Families, but they screwed over Zephyr Teachout in favor of slimy Andrew Cuomo. I'm rating them in need of improvement.

But meanwhile, someone has to stand up, someone has to call our representatives and let them know we're here, and someone has to stoke activism. That's on us, as far as I can tell.

The President and the Nazis

I know some people who voted for Trump. They aren't bad people, but their candidate is. I've been having discussions with some of them lately, and I'm pretty shocked by some of their answers. The white supremacist/ KKK/ nazi rally got a lot of coverage. We've seen the tiki torch marchers chanting, "blood and soil," and, "Jews will not replace us."

It was the President's job to condemn nazis, white supremacists and KKK right then and there. Instead, he spoke of how there was blame "on many sides." I don't know much about Antifa, though I heard a lot about them after this. I do know that it's short for "anti-fascist." I'm certainly anti-fascist. Then I hear accusations about people from Black Lives Matter who did this or that.

There are always people in groups who do stupid things. I'm a teacher, and I'm not going to sit here and insist that we are all perfect. I think we're unfairly stereotyped, and that a lot of things we do are blown out of proportion. But of course I'm not perfect, no one is, and there are people in our group who do things of which I would not approve. It's the nature of a group, of human nature, to be precise.

It's very different, though, when the professed purpose of a group is to hurt, kill or destroy other people. It's very different when such beliefs are the basis of the group. When that's the case, you do indeed condemn the entire group. It was the job of President Donald Trump to get up there and say nazis, white supremacists, and KKK are intolerable. They go against everything our country is supposed to be built upon.

Instead, he got up and spoke nonsense about "many sides." He then got roped into saying the right thing, but moved back. Why? Because the racists constitute his base. These are the people who will vote for him no matter what lies he tells, and no matter what atrocities he enables. He just pardoned a sheriff who boasted of running a concentration camp. I'm pretty sure he's sewn up the KKK vote for 2020 already.

I don't know what the defense is for acts like that. Ones I hear are, "What about these people over here who did this thing?" Well, what about them? If the thing they did was wrong, it was wrong. If it was stupid or hurtful, that's what it was. But you don't defend Donald Trump's moral equivalence like that, because individuals who do stupid, destructive, or racist things are simply not equal to groups whose professed purpose is to do those things.

Then we hear about the statues, another diversion. They say look, in Germany they kept the concentration camps up so people could remember. Then they equate that with the confederate statues. But it's completely different. While the camp buildings stand, they stand to warn against past atrocities. I've been to Germany, and you don't see statues to commemorate Hitler and Goebbels. You don't see nazis portrayed as heroes in public squares.

And please, spare me the nonsense about how the nazis live in their mothers' basements, about how they are disenfranchised and out of touch. Stop telling me how stupid they are, because that's not what this is about. That's the same thing they said about the growing nazi movement in Germany in the last century. I don't know if those nazis walked around with guns, but these do. And in case it's escaped your attention, one of them just plowed through a crowd and killed somebody. If he lived in his mom's basement, that doesn't mitigate what he did. 

We know the history of the nazis. We know the history of the KKK. We know the history of white supremacy. Calling them "alt-right" doesn't change what they are. If Donald Trump doesn't know what the name means, and doesn't know history, that's the best argument in his defense. However, that's also an argument that renders him incompetent for his present position. Sadly, there are many others.

If we're gonna be the land of the free and the home of the brave, we need a leader to condemn this unequivocally. And that sure as hell is not Donald J. Trump.

Reformy Chalkbeat Still Sucks

A lot of my ATR friends, among others,  are impressed with a recent piece in reformy Chalkbeat. After this blog and several others complained about the preposterous one-sided coverage of the issue, it's nice they finally took some time to actually talk to actual members of the Absent Teacher Reserve. There are great quotes, and the writer picked a very good one to title the story. It's a good story and she did a good job.

But this doesn't take reformy Chalkbeat off the hook for years of biased reporting. Chalkbeat began with promise and though I saw reformy leanings, it did attempt to give voice to a variety of points of view. One feature it had was a nightcap, where it went out of its way to give voice to independent voices, like bloggers and lesser known publications. It managed to show diversity back in those days.

Another thing Chalkbeat used to have was a vibrant comment section. They had a sidebar with recent comments inviting more, and it drew a lot of people in. Now you have to not only open the story, but also click on a "view comments" link before you can even see them. Often they're dominated by some guy who hates teacher pensions, and whatever the ostensible topic is it's all about why teacher pensions are the ruination of western civilization.

The problem is that Chalkbeat is an education publication, and therefore ought to be expert in education. When I read their stories, and I do so far less than I used to, I see reporters getting a story, going to the usual subjects, saying this is what they think, and that's it. Astroturf orgs like Students First NY, E4E, and "Families for Excellent Schools" pay people to talk to the press. Their leaders pay these spokespeople to take certain positions, i.e. anti-public school positions.

Now it's nice that Chalkbeat has heard our voices and gone out and found some ATR teachers to speak to. I certainly hope they expand on that and continue to reach out. However, that doesn't change the status quo or get them off the hook for all the times they've published reformy nonsense with no balance. Hey, you can call yourself Families for Excellent Schools, but when you're funded by hedge fund bazillionaires who wouldn't send their kids to public schools on a bet, the likelihood you actually represent working families is virtually nil.

There is a place for subjectivity. Right here, for example, I don't pretend to give all sides. I can only paint what I see. It's not my job to go out and find out exactly why the reformies think we should do more work for less pay. It doesn't much matter to me because they're wrong anyway. Our children will grow up to be working people. The notion that worsened working conditions will help our children is absurd.

Chalkbeat hasn't thought that through yet. I don't recall reading in Chalkbeat that the American Statistical Association believes that teachers influence test scores by 1-14%. I don't see the views of real education thinkers like Diane Ravitch there all that often. I frequently see pieces there that not only ignore UFT rank and file, but can't even be bothered getting a quote from leadership.

The rule over there is formulaic crap. What does E4E, whose leaders taught five minutes in public schools, think about the new UFT Contract? Why did Eva Moskowitz decide to sneeze in a blue handkerchief rather than a pink one? Why does Mayor de Blasio suck? Why are ATR teachers a scourge on Life Itself?

These are not the big questions. And at a crucial juncture like this one where the free press is under veritable assault, we need truth. We need genuine and multiple voices, not just a reinforcement of corporate crapification. It's funny how Trump cries over fake news simply because it's not favorable to him. The fact is here's an outlet that he'd probably be entirely comfortable with, simply because it reinforces all his insane notions about public education. Ironically, though Trump would love it, this leaves Chalkbeat as largely fake news. Having one lucid moment does not preclude being stark-raving mad, and having one fair story doesn't preclude overall reforminess either.

If I want to see out of the box thinking I'll read Diane Ravitch. And I do, in fact, all the time. If reporters from Chalkbeat have read either of her last two books, I see no evidence. Paid advocates quoted in Chalkbeat do not represent New York City schoolchildren. They represent forces pushing for privatization. If those are Chalkbeat's primary sources, they may as well just give it up and have Betsy DeVos and her staff write it.

That would certainly delight Gates and Walmart, both of whom fund Chalkbeat.

Trump and Moskowitz--Soulmates

I'm fascinated reading about Eva Moskowitz and her new book. I'm not the first to blog about it, and Jersey Jazzman has a great piece on it. I want to thank him in advance for the quote and commentary I'm reproducing here. This is about Kate Taylor, who wrote a particularly devastating piece about the Moskowitz Academies.

"Now I’m going to share with you some facts about Taylor and her editors that I fear may come across as an ad hominem attack but I hope you’ll ultimately conclude isn’t," Moskowitz writes.

She then reveals that Taylor attended a private high school, and that her editors either attended private schools or grew up in the suburbs, suggesting the Times’ journalists are incapable of understanding the black and Latino children who disproportionately attend Success schools

So here's the thing--an ad hominem argument is when you attack the person rather than the argument. That's exactly what Moskowitz is doing, while openly and shamelessly pretending not to. It's a logical fallacy and has no validity. I don't know--do you think minority students should be forced to test-prep until they pee their pants?

Is Times reporter Kate Taylor ignorant of that answer because she attended private high schools? Or is the argument itself inherently racist? I attended public high schools and I find it appalling. I wouldn't want my children or yours, or anyone's deprived of a bathroom when they needed one. I'm a public school teacher and subject to chancellor's regulations. I can tell you if I regularly made students pee themselves, I'd probably be fired. Campbell Brown would call for my head if I weren't.

In slamming people and passing that off as argument, Moskowitz is very much the mirror image of Donald Trump. How many times has Trump called out Obama? His primary opponents? Megan what's her name, formerly from Fox? McCain? McConnell? Who can even count who else? When Trump gets called by the press, it's "fake news." It's the "failing New York Times." Never mind coming up with an argument that supports the name-calling. Just repeat the fallacy, stoke opposition, and hope people believe you.

Moskowitz also goes after Juan Gonzalez, who wrote pieces exposing how buddy-buddy she was with then-Chancellor Joel Klein. I remember very well reading these pieces and being completely unsurprised. Here we are with this dual school system--one with rules and another where they just take the city's money and do whatever they want with it. And what do they accomplish with that?

Of course, it depends who you ask. Moskowitz is all over the press claiming that her system is wonderful. But I'll turn again to Jersey Jazzman with a detailed report on how Moskowitz Academies are different from public schools. Imagine the kind of test scores your school would have if you basically got rid of students who didn't make the cut. How many charters has Gary Rubinstein exposed that claimed 100% college acceptance, but somehow dumped and failed to replace 60% of the students with which they began?

Moskowitz also goes after Mayor Bill de Blasio. De Blasio openly opposed charter schools when he ran, and was elected overwhelmingly. He was going to block a few Moskowitz Academies, but Governor Andrew Cuomo came riding in on his white steed and changed the law for Moskowitz. If de Blasio doesn't provide space for the Moskowitz Academy, he has to pay their rent.

So basically, mayoral control means it all comes down to the mayor. He makes decisions about everything, unless he bucks Moskowitz. Then, it's completely unacceptable. In this, Moskowitz reminds me of Trump once again. Trump only respects the law if it benefits him. After Trump trashes Mexicans, a Mexican-American judge can't fairly judge him. After a judge rules against his Muslim ban, he's a "so-called judge." The law is what I say it is, when I say it is, and that's that.

Moskowitz didn't want to agree to any stinking rules about pre-K. At first she canceled her program rather than agree to the rules everyone else had to follow. But she fought it, and evidently is winning right now. After all, why should students have to wait until they're six years old before having the right to pee themselves?

I'm right, they say, and all my detractors are wrong. Only I can fix this problem. Oh, and I'm not a racist, even though I'm affiliated with people who are. Trump and Moskowitz. Made for one another. Eva is Trump with better hair.

All the Cluelessness That's Fit to Print

A few days ago, Diane Ravitch wrote about the NY Times and Trump. They oppose him, both on their editorial and op-ed pages. Ravitch gives particular attention to Charles Blow. Sometimes I like him, but not always. Ravitch herself wrote about him and how misinformed he is on the topic of reforminess. For me, once people spout reforminess, it's hard to take anything they say seriously. This is especially true when being well-informed is a crucial factor of their job description.

Of course Blow is not the only Times op-ed writer who adores all things reformy. Nicholas Kristof, like Eva Moskowitz, doesn't favor teacher certification. Now we all understand Eva wants cheap, replaceable teachers. If she could simply open up a new can every time she needed a few fresh ones, surely she'd be happy. Kristof, on the other hand, is ridiculous and illogical to the point of contending that teacher certification kept Meryl Streep and Colin Powell from becoming NYC teachers.

Have you noticed Streep and Powell coming to your school asking for work? Are their CVs on your principal's desk? Hey, I know it's a strain for Kristof to bang out 700 words twice a week. That's one heckuva burden. Perhaps all that work has addled his brain. Or maybe, just maybe, we need to be united in something more than opposition to Donald Trump.

Every reformy I know of opposes Trump. Even hyper-opportunist Eva Moskowitz was shamed into saying something negative about him after he vilified people who oppose white supremacy. But we have to be careful before we determine they're our friends. A while back I was Facebook friends with a whole lot of people who opposed Common Core. It was pretty clear, to me at least, that a lot of right-leaning people who opposed it would've embraced it had it not been pushed by Barack Obama. I mean, it was nice agreeing about Common Core, but all in all we don't see eye to eye.

I have a similar issue with opinion writers who oppose Trump but embrace all things reformy. These are people who either can't be bothered with cursory research or choose not to accept it. What's the fundamental difference between them and the climate change deniers? How are their beliefs more acceptable than those of people who think the earth was created 600 years ago, or whatever?

They don’t like Trump. We don’t like Trump. But they go along with nonsense like Common Core and charters. This is pretty much what Hillary did, and what she ran on. And this watered down wimpy nonsense is precisely what placed Donald Trump in the White House. Now they're all on their high horses, telling us how bad he is.

Truth is not a box of chocolates. You don't get to bite into one and place it back into the box half-eaten if you don't like it. There are no "alternative facts." You have to pretty much take it all, whether you like it or not, and deal with it. I voted for Hillary against Donald Trump, but I was sickened by her failure to embrace universal health care, college for all, and a living wage. Most Americans favor it, and a whole lot need it.

The point is we’re gonna have to do better in providing a vision for the future, because theirs has failed spectacularly. You can't come into an election with half-assed warmed-over platitudes and say, "Trump sucks so vote for us." More importantly, you can't present yourself as an authority and then pontificate on topics about which you know nothing.

A free press is vital to a democracy. The outrageous ignorance of NY Times columnists is most definitely one of the things that's brought us where we are today. On education, at least, their editorial staff is no better. Their education reporting, with notable exceptions, can be the very worst of any NY paper. On ATRs, it's little better than reformy Chalkbeat.

If we want to educate our children, and if we want to beat Trump and his merry band of white supremacist apologists, we're gonna need better from the "paper of record."

NY Post Reports Teacher Has Office

This morning I was perusing the news when I saw this story about some 36-year-old teacher who evidently had an affair with a 16-year-old student. It appears this was not completely unique in that school, and the Post calls it "Horndog High." The student was just awarded $750,000 in punitive damages.

Of course this teacher, unlike the ATRs whose heads are regularly demanded, was actually found guilty of something and fired. That's what happens to teachers when they do things like these, as opposed to, say, being in the wrong school at the right time.

In any case, the story also contained this paragraph:

While the married mom was supposed to be tutoring Eng, the pair were having intercourse and oral sex in her SUV and even in her office, where she was accused of keeping a stash of weed in her filing cabinet.

Her office? A teacher has an office? Have you ever heard of such a thing? Could you imagine having a quiet place to prepare your lessons, think about what you're going to do, and write quietly? I share a department office with a dozen other people, and since we work with the English department, a bunch of English teachers are always coming and going as well. Actually I come in an hour early almost every single day to prepare for my classes.

That's not enough, of course. You never know what's going to happen, or what you'll have to change or adjust. At the end of almost every day I have things on my mind, and I have to write them down or they'll forever be lost. My short-term memory is not exactly a thing of wonder and beauty.

I'm also the chapter leader, so I'm contractually entitled to a work space. I've had one for the last three or four years, in fact. I've shared a small office with the leader of our JROTC program. I'm sure he would tell you I'm the best office mate anyone could have. I'm almost never there. Originally I used it a little more. The principal was kind enough to furnish me with a computer, and whenever there was a grievance or something, I'd file it online and print it there.

Then I bought a Macbook Air and started carrying it everywhere. With WiFi printing available in our building, there wasn't much need for me to visit the office,  I therefore became an even better office mate.

However, there were about 300 UFT members in my school last time I looked. Stuff happens. People get upset. Sometimes they need a private space. I was able to provide that because my friend from JROTC, perhaps in eternal gratitude for my having left him alone 98% of the time, was always ready to give space to me and whoever else required it.

Unfortunately, this year the DOE, in its infinite wisdom, decided to give us 4,725 students. They also increased our special education population from about 650 to 800. This means we needed another school psychologist. Actually we've needed one for years. This year we probably need three, so we'll have two. Alas, the principal has unceremoniously booted me and the JROTC leader from our office.

Now in fairness, he's also given up his conference room to be used as a classroom, so the sacrifice is not entirely on our end. He's also offered me alternate space in our UFT Teacher Center office. But that's ridiculous, with all sorts of people marching in and out, and all sorts of scheduled meetings and PD sessions there. I declined the offer.

The thing is, when people are upset, they need privacy. The contract requires the school to give me some space, but as far as I can tell, it doesn't need to be adequate space. For now, I'm moving my office to the street.

Now things could change. With the help of Ellie Engler from UFT we were able to negotiate an annex to our building, though that's a few years away. This should get us 18 classrooms, although if they remove the trailers it will only be a net gain of ten. DOE agreed that this would be to accommodate our existing population. However, as far as I'm concerned, but overloading us in advance, they've reneged on their deal.

I expect September to be a disaster. Meanwhile, the folks who made these decisions will sit around in Tweed, in their air-conditioned offices, doing Whatever it Is They Do There. Thank goodness they're on the job.

Another Day, Another ATR Hatchet Job

The NY Post today has yet another assault on the Absent Teacher Reserve. Naturally, all blame is cast on the United Federation of Teachers and those who find themselves stuck in the ATR. No blame whatsoever is assigned to Michael Bloomberg, Patron Saint of Reforminess, who had an equal hand in creating this monstrosity.

Like reformy Chalkbeat, cited in the editorial, the Post bemoans the salaries of teachers without regular assignments, and also goes on to complain when the teachers are actually assigned. The clear implication is that teachers should be fired without due process. That's a slippery slope because we are all ATRs.

It's important to note that any teacher can be brought up on charges at any time, and that even if the charges are nonsense it's likely some minor one will be sustained. Maybe you used your phone in the school, or did something equally inconsequential. That's enough to fine you a few thousand bucks and place you into the ATR. Then you're doomed, if the Post gets its way.

Note also that the Post harps on salary. Teachers make too much money and it's best, evidently,  to fire them and save it. That's an odd argument for a piece purporting to be concerned about children. Do you want your children to grow up and be fired because their salaries are too high? It's not hard to infer the Post is fine with that. Those of us who actually care about children want decent working conditions for them.

...the ATR crowd averages 18 years of tenure — which means their salaries are too high for many principals’ budgets.

Yup, it's the money. I'm not sure how the Post expects to recruit the quality teacher it claims to want for less. NYC has tried that for decades and it's resulted in various intergalactic teacher searches. I myself got this job as a result of a subway ad. The utter lack of respect for experience in teachers shows how little the Post appreciates education, as well as a cynical lack of expectation that with age comes wisdom.

Another issue this brings up is so-called fair student funding. The fact is principals were not always tasked with worrying about teacher salaries in their budgets. This needs to change, and I hope UFT leadership moves toward making that happen. Doubtless the Post, which seems to hate the idea of teachers being compensated for their work, would cry bloody murder.

The Post offers absolutely no evidence for their main premise, that children will suffer as a result of being taught by ATRs. Make no mistake, this is a stereotype, promoted and reinforced by reformy Chalkbeat and others. If there are some ATRs who shouldn't be teaching, there is a process to remove them. Precisely zero of these ATR teachers have been removed by this process. The Post may or may not know this, but I do, and now you do.

Bernard Gassaway, former Boys and Girls HS principal, tweeted one test of that: “If ATRs are truly qualified top teachers, then place them at the highest performing schools where vacancies exist. No exceptions!”

It's interesting that the Post uses an argument from the leader of a school that, by Bloomberg standards, failed for many years. Also interesting is the fact that Gassaway himself took no responsibility for it, instead blaming the city. Then there's the strawman argument that UFT says ATRs are "top teachers." I have no idea whether or not that's true, and I'd argue, rather than stereotyping ATR teachers for better or worse, we should judge them individually.

All I'm saying is, by the DOE's own standards, no ATR teachers have been deemed unfit. Therefore firing them is beyond the pale. This is particularly true because Gassaway and the Post gleefully spread stereotypes about them. Not only that, but the DOE actually has a Scarlet Letter thing on the records of many, warning principals not to hire them even if they want to.

If the Post likes arguments like Gassaway's, I have one for them. Why not have the charter schools, which they say perform miracles, take all the low-performing, impoverished, non-English speaking and learning disabled students and work their magic? I mean, since we all suck and they're so wonderful, why not? On this actual astral plane, a whole lot of charters weed out students they find difficult, dump them back into public schools, and then pretend they don't exist. It's no coincidence that some Moskowitz Academy got caught with a "got to go" list.

I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of arguments that pit us against kids. I go into work every day to help New York City schoolchlldren. The Post represents the interests of privatizers hoping to profit off of them. The Post cried for years that ATR teachers weren't placed. Then when there's finally a program to place them, they cry even louder.

What the Post really wants is to see people fired without justification. It wants the erosion of due process. And with that, who will stand up for things that really help children, like reasonable class sizes and decent facilities? The Post? Reformy Chalkbeat?

Please.

The ATR and the Big Lie

I've never been an ATR, so I can't speak from experience here. My experience is limited to being an occasional substitute teacher, not one of my favorite things. I was in my school a few times this summer, and one day a secretary asked me to cover a class. I thought I'd maybe help out, so I asked, "Which class?"

She told me she needed a teacher for a day, and that there were three classes, two hours each. I told her thanks but no thanks. Two hours is a long time to work as a substitute teacher. I generally sub exactly once per semester, because that's what the contract requires. Some teachers volunteer to do more for extra pay, but not me. I don't even want to do the one.

As a teacher, I form relationships with students. They're not always the best, but they're always relationships. That's why I make it a point never to have students removed. I always think it's better they worry about what I will do, rather than some dean or AP. Really, what can they do that I can't? I also feel like allowing students to bother me that much signifies that they've won somehow. I've given up and shown them they are too much for me. I don't like to give them that.

However, when I'm subbing, I don't really give a golly gosh darn what the students think. I never have to see them again, so I'm happy to toss someone out so everyone else sees I'll do it. Of course, that works two ways. Obviously all the students know they won't see me tomorrow either. So why should they be on their best behavior, or anything remotely resembling it? Why not toss absolutely everything at that substitute teacher, and why not literally? Who's gonna know? Who's gonna care?

Now imagine that you're an ATR teacher, and your stock in trade is showing up and teaching whatever to whomever. Physics today, Chinese tomorrow. And then there are the principals, quoted in reformy Chalkbeat, who say how awful ATR teachers are. I'd only hire 5% of them, maybe, they say. And there are two issues with that.

Issue number one, of course, is if I were teaching Chinese or physics, I'd be totally incompetent. I know virtually nothing about either. Even if a teacher were to leave me lessons all I could do would be follow instructions, watch the kids and hope for the best. And the fact is that I get lessons for subbing far less than half the time I do it. Sometimes I hear that teachers should give lessons in their own subject area. Now mine is ESL, so it would be ludicrous to give such a lesson to native speakers. But even if I were to give one in ELA, imagine the reaction of a group of teenagers when a sub they will likely never see again gives a lesson on a different subject. And even if it's the same subject, it's ridiculous to compare the class culture of a regular teacher to one of a sub.

Issue number two is that principals, already overworked, now have to do way more observations than ever. NYC demands double the state-required two observations per year. Even if that were not the case, if I were a principal, it would not be a high priority to observe teachers who were just passing through. I'm chapter leader of the most overcrowded and largest school in Queens. My job is nuts (and believe it or not, I'm not complaining). The principal's job is crazier than mine. There is just no time to fairly assess teachers who aren't around very long. Frankly, I very much doubt the principals who cavalierly toss out these percentages have even bothered to look. The impressions we read about in Chalkbeat are fomented and reinforced by the stereotypes promoted by, among others, Chalkbeat itself.

If someone wants to make me ATR for a day, or a week, or whatever, I'd be happy to participate and let a reporter follow me around. Then they could see what it was really like. Personally, I doubt they have any interest. My success rate as a sub, by my own estimation, runs around 50-50. Sometimes kids are cooperative and I let them do what they want. Other times, they need to make a show, and I need to have one or two removed before they settle down. Sometimes, they never quite settle down and I can't wait to be out of there.

I wonder if any reporters from Chalkbeat ever had or saw a substitute teacher. To compare a classroom with a culture, developed over time, with one led by a total stranger the students expect to never see again is preposterous beyond belief. Watching Chalkbeat and others work up this nonsense so that "Families for Excellent Schools" can organize a dozen parents to protest teachers going to work is beyond the pale.

ATR detractors are mad the teachers are getting paid without regular classes. They're mad the teachers are getting regular classes. Their demand is that all these people be fired for no reason whatsoever.

For my money, they can all do what Mooch says Steve Bannon does.

Reformy Chalkbeat Has Another ATR Report with No ATRs

Kind of amazing that an education publication can write for years about a group and never bother to talk to a member, or learn anything when finally pressured into it. But that's no issue for Chalkbeat NY. Naturally the first person they interview is from Students First NY, because they have her on speed dial. (Norm Scott notes this same person supports no certification for teachers.) And who better to assess a situation like the ATR than someone who's paid to shill for charter schools? How many ATRs does Students First NY know? My best guess is zero.

In fact, I've heard from an ATR who spoke with Chalkbeat for an hour. This happened after several blogs, this one included, pointed out how ridiculous it was that they wrote about ATRs without interviewing any. So Chalkbeat's move, evidently, was to interview one single solitary ATR and report virtually nothing about it. (Update--A commenter informs me they interviewed two, thought evidence in the article is scant.) After all, you could always get someone reformy to say the same old crap they always do, and that's what passes for journalism over at Chalkbeat NY.

One of the cool things about just asking reformies what they think is it makes your Gates/ Walmart funders happy. ATRs are bad for kids. They're no good. It's bad policy. It's so bad it's shocking. Why? Who knows? Chalkbeat doesn't ask and doesn't appear to care. That would entail digging more deeply than the Students First NY position, getting real quotes from real teachers, and who wants to do that? Why that would be, you know, like work or something.

Teachers in the ATR have argued that their higher salaries are one reason principals avoid hiring them — a concern that principals voiced in a recent Chalkbeat report. 

It's interesting that Chalkbeat makes this reference plural, while offering no evidence they've spoken with even one ATR, let alone two or more. You'd think they'd have a quote. After all, they have a quote from the single person from Students First NY whose remark is of more importance than any UFT member. Where's the quote from a UFT member? And while we're on the topic, this contradicts UFT leadership, which seems to feel otherwise. (Why on earth are they advertising on Chalkbeat?) It's time to get rid of so-called fair student funding, so principals don't have to worry about salaries of those they hire.

“This is part of the injustice of the ATR placement,” said Scott Conti, principal of New Design High School in Manhattan. “Schools might not want them and they will cost schools more in the future, taking away from other budget priorities.” 

I wonder if anyone wants that principal. I've been up close and personal this year with schools and people who didn't want principals. Oddly, their salaries never came into play. Rather, it was their demonstrated cruelty, self-centeredness, and incompetence, none of which has been established for a single one of the ATR teachers generally ignored by this piece.

Once again, Chalkbeat puts out the argument that it's inconvenient to pay teachers. It's pretty interesting to hear that a principal is troubled by having to do that. What is more important for children than teachers? A big screen TV in the principal's office? A gala luncheon at the Marriott? Getting a teacher with the lowest possible salary regardless of quality? Who knows what they hell principals like that find important?  For me, teaching kids is important. That's why I'm a teacher.

If I were a journalist, it would be important for me to talk to teachers. In fact, I talk to teachers just about every day. I also talk to students every single school day. I'd be a terrible journalist by Chalkbeat standards. I don't know anyone from Students First NY, E4E, or "Families for Excellent Schools." I'd probably go around talking to real participants instead of paid shills.

What could I possibly know about education?

Steve Bannon and Eva Moskowitz Trash Talk Trump

Everyone's heard of what rats do on sinking ships, so I guess it was bound to happen. Steve Bannon, maybe on borrowed time after Trump's odd comments about him, called up a left-leaning publication on record. He said some things that make sense, i.e., that Seoul would not last very long at all in Trump's fire and fury. He also said he hoped the left kept protesting nazis, thinking it would hurt them in the polls. I didn't agree with that. I almost never watch cable news at all, but the other day I couldn't even see support for nazis on Fox News.

Of course, the other Trump enthusiast to distance herself was Moskowitz, Count on reformy Chalkbeat to shadow her every move, whether jumping on or off the Trump bandwagon. Moskowitz was under consideration for Education Secretary, because Trump needed the reformiest people, and needed to be so reformy that people would get tired of all the reforminess. (In fairness, it seems he's achieving that.)

Of course Moskowitz needed to distance herself from him at this point. Of course, she didn't need to distance herself at other points. For example, before the hoopla of the presidential campaign, Trump spent a great deal of time in his quest trying to prove our first black President, Barack Obama, was not born in the United States. In fact, even when Obama produced his birth certificate, that was not enough for Trump. It's not too hard to see this effort as overt racism, particularly since there was no basis for it whatsoever. But I digress.

Eva Moskowitz was not put off when Trump said Mexicans were rapists and murderers. I was, because I understand the odious nature of stereotypes. In fact, I grew up in a Catholic neighborhood and got to experience them very young. People who traffic in stereotypes ought not to be around children, let alone teach them. But hey, it's okay with Eva Moskowitz, and she runs a bunch of schools.

Moskowitz didn't mind when Trump incited his supporters toward violence with those who disagreed with them. It was fine when he got a bunch of angry thugs all excited. After all, it isn't like they hate her students and everything they stand for, is it? Actually, given that they're white supremacists, nazis, KKK, and whatever, it kind of is. But that didn't temper Eva's support. Go figure.

Trump didn't think a Mexican-American judge could be fair to him. He expected the judge to be just as predudiced as he was. He acted like he didn't know who David Duke was. Forget that three weeks ago he was telling police to hit the heads of suspects on their cars. No innocent before being proven guilty for him, and no issue for Eva.

Then there's that Muslim ban. Trump said we needed to stop them from coming in until we figured out just what the hell was going on. I found it odd that he was running for President and didn't already know. I mean, you kind of look to the President to tell you what the hell is going on. The President has top-secret briefings and info not available to the rest of us. Of course, Trump was too busy read those briefings, opting instead for feel good stuff about himself twice a day. So it's no wonder he doesn't know what the hell is going on.  I's kind of our job to be role models, and it's kind of our job to help kids figure out what the hell is going on. But ignoring that was good enough for Eva Moskowitz if if got her favorable treatment.

And who could forget the "grab them by the pussy" moment, followed soon by Trump's claim that no one respected women more than him. My first thought was that women are in pretty deep peril if no one respected them more than some guy who was grabbing them by the pussy. A lot of us thought that was the end for Donald Trump, but there's the PT Barnum quote that, "Nobody ever lost a dollar by underestimating the taste of the American people." And then there's the fact that Trump actually got three million fewer votes than his opponent, which kind of put the kibosh on any arguments this was a democratic election. None of that mattered to Eva Moskowitz.

Moskowitz is used to manipulating politicians for her own interests.  We all know that Joel Klein, while closing public schools rather than helping them, was at her beck and call. Of course, he's gone now. And we all know that whoredog in chief Andrew Cuomo would appear at a charter rally just about anytime as long as those suitcases of cash came barreling in. But Cuomo sensed the mood was shifting sometime during the last few years of opt-out, and decided to change his image to Sanders Lite.

So there was Eva, all alone. Who could she turn to? There was Trump. You knew he didn't give a damn about opt-out. I mean, a man who refused to criticize white supremacists and KKK was unlikely to come out against standardized testing. It seemed foolproof.

But then came the day that not even Fox News would rationalize his actions and Eva knew she'd made a mistake. So she wrote a letter. Now I can only assume she's now good with herself. She should have been "more outspoken" against all the things she evidently found completely acceptable. She also she has a book to sell.

I can't wait for reformy Chalkbeat to tell us how wonderful it is.

The Big Bank and Me

I have a few accounts at Chase. I think they're also called JP Morgan. It's convenient for me because they seem to have branches everywhere, and if I need cash I can almost always find a Chase ATM.

A month ago, I deposited a check for $1650. I had a deposit form, and I filled it out correctly. I don't like to brag, but I'm a high school graduate and I can handle that many digits and possibly more. (Sadly, as a working teacher, I don't often get to handle many more.) But it wasn't my mistake when Chase decided the check was only worth $16.50. Nonetheless, I was a little upset. That left me with over $1600 less than I'd expected.

I called the number on the back of my debit card. I spoke to someone with an unidentifiable accent who didn't know what to do. This person transferred me to someone else who also didn't know what to do. Oddly, they had access to a view of the check, and knew it was incorrect. I can only assume Chase had never, ever made a mistake before, so it was beyond their capacity.

As I was not working, I decided to visit my local Chase branch. What they did was get on the phone, but evidently the people on the other ends of their phones were not the same as those on the other side of mine. They were able to come to an agreement to somehow issue me a refund, of course at the expense of my friend who wrote the check. I was a little upset at having to waste my time on this, but I was off for the summer so it wasn't that bad.

This month, though, I deposited yet another check for $1650. This time Chase decided it was worth $7650. Now that was better for me than $16.50, but somewhat of a disadvantage for my friend. For one thing, there wasn't enough money in the account to cover it, so it bounced. I made two phone calls, and of course there was nothing they could do, so once again I visited the bank.

The people there were very nice, and said they would work something out and not to worry about it. Nonetheless, the next day there was a charge of $12 to my account for the bounced check. I called again.I told the person on the other end my fee for gross incompetence was $50. He was confused. He said the fee was only twelve dollars. I told him this was my fee, not his.

After all, if the bank is free to charge arbitrary fees for my errors, why shouldn't I charge one for theirs? The person on the phone didn't understand that, so I went back to the bank. After a half-hour wait, I went home and sent them an email. Chase said they would investigate. The following day, they credited back my twelve bucks.

I told them it wasn't good enough, and I filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau. It turns out, though, that they don't deal with arbitrary fees initiated by consumers. Who knew? So the next time I get an email from Chase telling me how sorry they are, I'll tel them we'll see each other in small claims court. I think the minimum is fifty bucks. However, if it isn't, I'm willing to raise my arbitrary fee.

After all, like theirs, it's just something I made up, so it may as well be any damn number I see fit.