17 Minutes on Wednesday

For the record, I support the walkout. I'm not teaching at ten o'clock and I will join the students at my school. I'll try to help if I can. That said, there's a lot about this walkout that's curious, if not necessarily bad.

First, of course, there's the mayor's open support. You don't always get a mayor coming out and saying he's okay with a mass protest, but there you go. It's a good cause, and I'm glad he supports it. Then you get the convoluted directions from DOE, which is not really good at anything except violating the UFT Contract for no reason. Cooperate with people? That's not what they do.

Last week an administrator told me that Carmen Fariña directed that the seventeen minutes were excused, but anything beyond that would be considered cutting. I can see it now:

How dare you stay out for eighteen minutes, you little hooligan!

On the other hand, if you're gonna stay out for seventeen minutes, you need passing time. At our school, kids get four minutes to go from class to class. I'd argue they need five, but I already argue about enough things, so I won't do that right now. If they need four minutes, then they need to walk out at 9:56 and return at 10:21.

But kids will be kids, and one thing kids do when they're being kids is talk with other kids. So when you have, in my school at least, literally thousands of kids walking, can you expect them to return on time? Will they say, "Oh my gosh, I've gotta get back to Miss Wormwood's class by 10:17 so let me start walking at 10:13 to beat the rush." And if they all say that, won't the rush begin at 10:13? Or will the rush begin at 10:17, thus rendering tens of thousands of city kids to break Carmen's rule? Will that mean it's no longer a beautiful day, even if Macy's is open?

Who's to say?

More importantly, who will be moved by this protest? Clearly not the NRA, which is already trying to block the modest and far from sufficient measures the governor of Florida is taking to reduce gun availability. Did he clear those changes with them before offering them? Did they conspire to put them up only to challenge them in court? You never know, in the good old USA these days.

In our school, I was asked by one-on-one paraprofessionals what they were to do in case of the walkout. It's a pretty fair question. First, if you don't go with the kids to whom you're assigned, are you shirking your duty? And if you do go, and something happens to the kid, are you responsible? It seems like a no-win situation. Last I heard, they were allowed to go or not as their conscience dictates, but to let someone know if they were not planning to go so the kids could be covered.

For teachers it was a little simpler. Teachers would be permitted to go if all their students left. They would also be permitted to stay as conscience dictated.

In our school, the student government seems to have organized the march out onto our athletic field. They're actually making announcements about it. We've got a pretty cooperative student body. I'm impressed. When I was 15, if I walked out there was no way I was gonna return. I have to suppose we'll have 15-year-olds with similar leanings, and it will be a good day for Arby's and the nearby grease truck.

All this is small potatoes, though, compared to what will surely be a national story. Will we bring our useless politicians to the point where they represent We, the People instead of the gun industry? Time will tell, and Wednesday will have to be one in a series of many events to get us the answer we need.

The Mariachi Chancellor, El Rey

I honestly don't know a whole lot about Richard Carranza. I see good and bad things. On the plus side, he's a former English Language Learner, or ELL. This gives me hope that he might see through the miserable Part 154 that robs ELLs of both direct English instruction and also core content instruction. In 2017, we ought to offer our most needy kids something better than sink or swim.

Also, he seems to be an advocate for public schools. The last guy the mayor picked, Tom Carvel or somebody, looked like an advocate for school choice in the Jeb Bush mode. Florida's not where I would go to model public schools, though the weather seems pretty nice. Alas, Carvel not only failed to bring the weather over, but also failed to show himself.

On the other hand, there are the stories about Carranza, largely in the Daily News, from his failure to perform miracles, to creepy treatment of female subordinates, resulting in a 75K payoff. I'm not personally too put off by the miracle thing, because miracle stories, like accomplishments of Texas and Michelle Rhee, usually turn out to be outright fabrications. Carranza seems to have a thing for TFA, while I think he'd be better off finding local talent. In fact, I wonder why the mayor couldn't find anyone in NY. The mayor said mayoral control was all about him doing what he wanted to do, but that's not really true.

When de Blasio was elected, he not only stated opposition to charters, but also blocked a Moskowitz Academy or two. Cuomo and his Heavy Hearted Assembly rapidly passed a law that NYC would have to pay rent for charters of which it didn't approve. This said to me that mayoral control was valid only if the mayor was a reformy. They never passed laws against Bloomberg. Evidently, de Blasio hasn't put that together just yet.

Carranza says there's no daylight between his vision and that of the mayor, but I have no idea what the mayor's vision is anymore. When he first ran, he seemed great. He opposed charters and reforminess. He was the anti-Bloomberg. I supported him even as the UFT was pushing that guy, what's his name, who told the Daily News that teachers didn't deserve the raise cops and firefighters got.

These days I have no idea what the mayor stands for. He left a whole bunch of Bloomberg's people in place, so we still lose at step two hearings even when we're 100% correct. He left a bunch of scumbag lawyers in "legal" who believe in doing whatever the hell they feel like and think screwing UFT members is the national pastime. He picks an outright reformy to be chancellor and then immediate turns around and picks a guy who appears to support public schools. Though the NY Post thinks de Blasio's Che Guevara, he negotiated the lowest pattern bargain in my living memory for city workers.

A few days ago, I was speaking to a music teacher I respect a lot who said the new chancellor was a great singer. I later found a video over at Leonie Haimson's site, which I've posted below. He is a very good singer, and he also plays the violin. You have to respect that. Maybe I'm culturally biased or something, but his choice of song is pretty unusual as far as I'm concerned. It's called El Rey, or the king, and it seems like a tribute to machismo or something:

Con dinero
Y sin dinero
Yo hago siempre
Lo que quiero
Y mi palabra
Es la ley 

That says, roughly, if I'm rich or if I'm broke, I do any damn thing I feel like, and my word is the law. It's the kind of song Donald Trump might tweet if he had any music in his miserable, barren soul. El Rey is about a man whose "queen" appears to have dumped him for his miserable attitude, a man who's learned nothing whatsoever from it. While it's tongue in cheek, I'm not at all sure I'd teach it in a class. Given Chancellor's Regulation A-421 about verbal abuse, I'd be very nervous about it. You know, it might make some student feel uneasy. 

I might be sitting in the principal's office being accused of sexism and getting a letter in my file for sharing that song, but there's our chancellor, with an orchestra full of students, performing it. Putting the potential sexism aside, the notion of being the king is the kind of thing I'd expect from Bloomberg or Trump, not an educator. Does the new chancellor have a sharper sense of humor than I do, or is he broadcasting the future?

Only time will tell.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reformy Chalkbeat Can't Find a Working Teacher Who Isn't E4E

When you read Chalkbeat, you know you'll get a diverse point of view. Whenever I want to find a broad variety of non-teacher opinions, say, about the new chancellor I go right there.

First, you get Michael Mulgrew. While Mulgrew is the head of UFT, he hasn't been a working teacher for some years now. Then, you get a deputy mayor, who I assume also does not teach either. (I don't see a lot of deputy mayors hanging around the lunchroom.)

Then you go to the person probably most quoted by Chalkbeat, Jenny Sedlis, Executive Director of Students First NY. Everyone knows that the way reformies put students first is by putting teachers last. Of course, teachers should be fired at will, because supervisors know everything. They never act out of vindictiveness. They are never failed teachers who moved up because they couldn't do the actual job. Most of all, they are never utterly unqualified, like Joel Klein, Cathie Black, Betsy DeVos, or any number of people who've run school systems. If Michelle Rhee says taping kids' mouths shut is the way to go, that should be good enough for anyone.

Naturally, you then pivot to James Merriman, the CEO of NYC Charter Center. Maybe Eva Moskowitz was unavailable. In any case, it's important to find out what charter school people think about the chancellor, even though they can't be bothered following chancellor's regs. Verbal abuse? Well, abuse on if that means they're gonna pass the standardized test. Corporal punishment? Let the kids pee their pants instead of leaving test prep because we're zero tolerance and we don't go for that human dignity nonsense. Oddly, I afford my dog more dignity than some charters afford their kids so I'll be walking him very early on this slushy and snowy morning.

Then you go to Houston Federation of Teachers President Zeph Capo and American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten: Naturally you group them together, because who can be bothered to distinguish between teacher union presidents? It's not like they're Educators 4 Excellence, in which case you'd need to get each and every one of their comments. Of course neither one of them teaches, so you haven't muddied the waters too much with anyone who actually does this job.

 You then, finally, get to someone very important, to wit, former teacher Evan Stone, who runs a group called Educators 4 Excellence even though he himself hasn't been an educator for years. I mean, he was one for maybe five minutes, but now he's got this groovy gig taking Gates money, and he doesn't have to be bothered with the trivial nonsense of actually teaching children. Chalkbeat once ran a feature about how E4E managed to acquire 100 signatures for something or other, probably more work for less pay. I work in the largest school in Queens, and I could collect 100 signatures in 45 minutes. But since I don't take money from Bill Gates, like E4E and Chalkbeat, who cares what I think?

Of course you follow that up by interviewing an actual teacher. Since you are, ostensibly, a site about education, but neither know nor can be bothered to look up any actual teachers, you leave no Evan Stone unturned and ask him who he knows. And who would've thunk it, but the only teachers he knows are also Educators 4 Excellence. So you talk to that person and you've killed several birds with one Evan Stone. First of all, you haven't had to bother with the messy work of talking to any typical rank and file, because who knows what they will say? Certainly no one at Chalkbeat, and certainly no one who relies on Chalkbeat for information. On top of that, you've managed to sneak in yet another reformy view while presenting it as that of an ordinary teacher.

Best of all you don't have to worry about those nasty bloggers calling you a reformy rag. You interviewed a living breathing teacher and no one can say otherwise. Who cares if the one you found signed a pledge of allegiance to a Gates-supported bunch of reformies that has no business claiming to represent teachers? The important thing is you can tell yourself you spoke to a teacher, and when you get down to it, that should be good enough for anyone.

After all, teaching is already a calling, so why should you bother calling teachers?

Correction: Of course they interviewed Eva Moskowitz. I don't know if they added it or if I missed it, but no Chalkbeat piece would be complete without her opinion.

Mandatory Voluntary Meetings

In recounting the exciting adventures of a 30-year-old Boy Wonder Supervisor, I used to harp on mandatory voluntary meetings. To be a supervisor with no respect for those you supervise is to spend a lot of time thinking of ways to go around the Collective Bargaining Agreement. How inconvenient to have to allow people to go to lunch. How time-consuming to actually rate people based on their performance rather than your caprices, or what the voices in your head say.

I just got an email about a school asking people to go to a mandatory summer institute if they wish to re-apply for their jobs. After announcing it's mandatory, they later say it's voluntary. I was actually ridiculing the doubletalk I'd seen from supervisors when I wrote about Boy Wonder, but this school actually and literally used it.

I don't know if these Renewal Schools, or whatever this one is called, operate under different rules. But it appears they know they're violating hiring procedures by calling this mandatory and then stating it's voluntary. It's quite creepy when supervisors engage in deceit to get around obvious rules. But Bloomberg's spirit is alive and well in the DOE, and the folks at "legal" sit around and plot how to do just that.

My contact in this school tells me that they do teacher team meetings each and every day. I'm assuming that's what their C6 assignment is. This is another blatant violation of the CBA. Unless there's an SBO, there is a menu of tasks from which teachers can choose. If they don't get one of their first three choices, they can get another three. If they don't get one after that, they shouldn't be stuck doing whatever task they didn't want twice in a row.

I've heard of schools with little or no union presence in which this is done. If you have no chapter leader, or if the chapter leader is asleep long-term, these things can happen. If it were happening in my school, I'd file a reorganization grievance for the chapter day one and send it to an arbitrator right away. The thing about those, though, is you have only a brief window to do that. So these people may be stuck. I'm not sure, but if I were CL over there I'd make it a point to find out quickly.

I have not been a lover of rules most of my life, actually. I once knew a supervisor who called herself a "rule-follower" who was nothing of the sort. I'm not sure anyone likes rules. You can't do this or that. You can't bring your dog on the beach. You can't fall asleep in front of your classroom. No, it doesn't matter if you are tired.

Of course, principals have no more love for the rules than you do. Like everyone, they want to do what they want to do, and if you want to do something else, well, that's just not convenient. If you're the chapter leader, you're a check on that sort of thing. When the principal puts on his cowboy hat and declares your school to be the Wild West, you have to fight back.

Rules are the only things that separate us from the animals. Now don't get me wrong, I love animals. I'm sitting with my favorite one right now. Maybe I should say rules are the only things that separate us from the administrators. It's our duty to throw these rules in their faces as much as possible. My dog doesn't really love to sit on command. So I practice it with him a lot. I'm gonna do it even more if we ever have nice weather. He can learn.

Call me naive, but I think administrators can learn too. You just have to be determined. If you give up, your dog will never sit, and your administrator will never stop assigning mandatory voluntary meetings.

If You're Not With Us, You're Against Us

I don't know how to put that more delicately. I really have to wonder about people who won't pay into union. As soon as Janus passes, I'll be supporting them. I'll be paying for their representation. I'll be paying for negotiations on their behalf. I'll be paying for any salary increase or benefit that's negotiated for them.

I read comments from people who won't pay. They say Mulgrew sucks. He did this, he didn't do that. Or Unity sucks. Or whatever. I've had this blog up for 13 years now, and I've done my fair share of complaining about leadership. But I've also taken action. For nine years I've been chapter leader of the largest school in Queens. I've run against the Unity Caucus in both state and city elections, and a few years ago I actually won a place in the UFT Executive Board. It was a minor miracle, but high school teachers have often voted against the machine. That's why Unity rigged the election so we could no longer select our own Vice-President.

It's often frustrating to work in a situation in which you're hugely outnumbered. You bring up a resolution and 95 people are vehemently against it. They explain why and it makes no sense at all. One of the people we ran with for Executive Board got frustrated after his second meeting and stopped coming. I can understand why someone might feel that way. I can also understand anger at the leadership, particularly from woefully mistreated people in the ATR.

But still, no matter what leadership does, no matter what they fail to do, it's on us. We voted for them, sort of, when three out of four of us failed to vote at all. If we are so apathetic that we can't drop a ballot in a mailbox, we have little right to complain. Leadership plays a role in that too. While it's nice to see them reaching out, organizing in schools, and sending people to homes, it's disconcerting to think this is the first time in my 30-plus year career they've bothered to do so.

It's a pretty rude awakening to go from expecting all to pay to having to reach out. Leadership still surrounds itself with loyalty oath signers and that alone keeps them isolated. They hire idiots to represent us and promote them for no reason other than loyalty. Sometimes loyalty oath signers comment on this site. They say the stupidest things and I'll read a few months later they've been promoted. Maybe one of them is your district rep. and you have all my sympathy.

But still, it's our union. It's on us to work to change it. It's a delicate balance. I wouldn't bother to do this work if I thought it had no value. When principals pull crazy nonsense, or harass and abuse people because some moron at "legal" said it was a good idea, someone has to fight. The only people who can do that are you and me.

I'm up for it. If you don't pay, you aren't. And I'm really torn about what to do when people I represent don't pay. Right now when people get in trouble, I try to find out how and why it happened. I ask questions. I scour the contract to find violations. I asked a UFT official if I would have to represent non-members and I was told yes, I would.

I send out a weekly email to my members. I have an email address I devote to union business. When members contact me, I respond. Sometimes I know answers right away. Sometimes I can find answers on the UFT website. Sometimes I ask my district rep. Sometimes I go to contacts both in and out of leadership. But I can usually answer questions pretty quickly, one way or another.

A former chapter leader of mine had a different approach. If you asked him a question, he'd say, "Put a letter in my box." I used to do just that, but one day he told me that 80% of members didn't bother. That's a good way to cut down your workload, but if that's your goal, why did you take the job in the first place?

I'm not sure what to do about people who don't pay. I guess I could get really enthusiastic and show them how dedicated I am. On the other hand, I could drop them all from my email list and tell them to put a letter in my box when they have problems. I could move them from my "right away" files to my "when and if I get around to it" files.

I guess I have to go to discipline hearings them when they get in trouble. But it's hard for me to keep up with my reading. Maybe I could bring a mystery novel with me and read it while the principal does whatever. Maybe I'll forget about all those rules the principal has to follow when he puts a letter in your file. Maybe I won't hear those details because Miss Marple was making a crucial deduction when they came up. Who knows?

Is it ethical to do that? I don't know for sure, but it's hard for me to imagine feeling very bad about it. Is it ethical to withhold dues?

Absolutely not.

Chancellor Chickens Out, I Step Up

That's right, I am volunteering to be Chancellor of NYC Schools, and I won't accept the 353K. I will do it for half that. That's appropriate because my first action will be to halve the salaries of everyone and anyone who worked under Bloomberg. If they don't take the hint, they're fired.

We will also turn around the rating system. We will design tests for all educational administrators. We are through with all this effective and ineffective stuff, and Danielson, on her own recommendation, will be out of the classroom for good.

Administrators will be tested to determine whether they are Not Insane. That will be our highest and only rating. If they miss the rating, they will join me in the 50% pay cut. If they don't like it, they can always leave, and we will all be better off.

Next, we will settle the UFT Contract. UFT members get a 20% pay raise across the board. Non-UFT members will no longer be covered by the contract, but we will give all of them $15 an hour, because minimum wage is too low, even for those too selfish or shortsighted to join a union.

Class size in high schools will fall to 25, as per C4E. At other levels, we will follow the C4E mandates. Any administrators with oversized classes will be personally fined $1,000 a week for each student in each oversized class. If DOE grants them exceptions, their fines will be halved. We are reasonable.

Special ed. teachers with co-teachers will be granted one free period for every co-teacher, Once they get up to four, they won't teach at all. The money we lose by granting more than one free period will be paid personally by the administrators who assign them. Also, any administrators assigning anyone more than one co-teacher will lose the Not Insane rating (if they have it) and see their salaries halved, for a second time if necessary.

ESL teachers will teach ESL. No one will help them, and they will no longer support teachers of other subjects until every English language learner is served with a full program of direct English instruction.

Teachers will not carry guns except when they have meetings with administrators who failed to be rated Not Insane.

First members of my staff will be the people who regularly ask questions at UFT Executive Board. Sandwich eaters need not apply. There will be jobs for genuine union activists who will turn their activism toward helping the children of New York City. There will be a handful of extraordinarily talented union people who I will steal.

We will be appropriating certain properties via eminent domain, like Trump Tower, Cathie Black's penthouse, and Bloomberg's brownstone to start. We will be converting them into public schools. These changes will help us reduce class sizes and avoid overcrowding. Eva is out. Private schools are out. Zillionaires will send their kids to public schools, and there will be swift and decisive changes.

Feel free to suggest further changes in the comments.

The Contract Committee

I'm on the 300-member contract committee, which meets today. I'm really quite curious how 300 people can accomplish anything of substance in a two-hour meeting, so I'm looking forward to it. There is a questionnaire out that's probably reached your email, and I'd urge you to respond.

By tonight I will know what the 300-member committee is all about, but alas I won't be able to report it. Evidently, those of us who attend are sworn to secrecy. That's why I have mixed feelings about even going. Not only will our voice be relatively small, but we will also be hugely outnumbered by people who've sworn loyalty. So whatever happens, you won't be reading about it.

I've decided to go, just like I've decided to vote every chance I get. How many people stayed home and allowed Donald Trump to become President of the United States? I don't know, but I certainly wasn't one of them. Although I chose Bernie in the primary, I voted for Hillary in the general. While I wasn't particularly enamored by her, she looked good next to Donald Trump. I offered to swap my Hillary vote with a PA friend's Jill Stein vote, but he wasn't having it.

I will tell you that I have a few personal priorities. One is class size. C4E got a ruling that we would have sizes of 25 in the high schools. In fact, I don't think this needs to be a contractual demand. Unity always argues that class size is something we give up money for. Were it up to me, I'd frame the class size argument in terms of following the order. I know it's expensive, and that it may entail hiring more teachers and finding more space. But this is a priority if we really care about kids. Let them sell Manhattan Island. They only paid $24 for it, if I recall.

Another is Part 154. Oddly, the questionnaire asked whether we wanted stronger enforcement. This is an odd question, since these ESL regulations cause students to lose services on a massive scale and where they most need them. They also will result in fewer ESL teachers being hired, and existing teachers losing positions. We don't need stronger enforcement. We need the whole thing rewritten.

Another issue is co-teaching. As far as I can tell, the way co-teachers are chosen in my school is eenie-meenie--miney--moe. Thus I have to spend a lot of time negotiation bad pairings. I once had to sit with another teacher and negotiate how to split a class in two, since the co-teachers weren't speaking to one another. I've also had mixed experiences with co-teachers myself.

Special ed. teachers are particularly hard-hit by this. They have to not only co-teach, often with multiple teachers, but also write IEPs. They need some relief.

Although a lot of people like the extra hours for grading, I'd like to see schools grade tests. It's an enormous waste of city money to pay people to grade tests that could be done for free in house. That money could go to some benefit for us, e.g., parental leave.

We also need to reduce observations to the state minimum for those who do well. We need an alternative to junk science, or throwing crapshoots and hoping for the best.

Sorry, but I have to run and teach, and therefore I have to stop. What are your priorities?

Janus Comes to Reformytown

I'm always amazed at the things that reformies say. Reformy of the day is Daniel Weisberg, who has an op-ed in the Daily News about Janus. First, the reformy supports union:

I personally think the court got it right a half century ago. It’s a matter of basic fairness that workers who reap the benefits of collective bargaining should also share in the costs.

And then, in a magical change of direction, we're told what to do after our certain loss:

The more radical move would be to get out of the collective bargaining business and become professional associations — think the American Medical Association or the National Trial Lawyers.

So let's be clear on this, because we're quite different from lawyers and doctors. Last I heard, doctors and lawyers could set their own fees. This means they have no need whatsoever for collective bargaining. If you think teachers are going to be able to charge districts on the basis of their fame and/ or expertise, I have a bridge in Brooklyn and I can give you a very good deal on it. I guess the union leadership could act all professional and we'd be left to hope for the best.

Oddly, differences I have with leadership often involve their eagerness to be professional. I retch when I hear about us getting a "seat at the table." Me, I'd prefer fair compensation to Mulgrew having a meeting with some important muckety-muck. But that's not all:

As professional associations, unions could put all their resources and political clout behind a long-term plan for elevating the teaching profession through higher pay, more rigorous performance standards, and better working conditions. 

Okay, so  I appreciate the higher pay (even though districts without collective bargaining get paid far less), but we don't actually "elevate the teaching profession." Our unions work only district to district. As for higher pay, if we aren't bargaining collectively, how the hell are we supposed to do that? Do we go to church and pray for it? Light a candle somewhere? I know we can't  demonstrate or strike because that would likely not be "professional." After all, doctors and lawyers don't do that stuff.

And then we're fighting for "more rigorous performance standards." I mean, why the hell not? Since we can't do anything to get better pay, why not make observations more rigorous? Isn't rigor what people want most out of life? Yes, I want to be observed 200 times a year, and I want to be judged by test scores in a way that's even more ridiculous than now. Maybe the reformy who wrote this piece is unaware that teachers all over the country are judged by junk science since "Race to the Top," but one of the great things about being a reformy is you get to just, you know, make up stuff.

And they could fight for this agenda without any obligation to defend individual members who engage in misconduct or who simply aren’t up to the job — a change that would probably win them new allies.

Well, thank you very much for that. Hey, I can't wait to have a union that won't defend me when I'm accused. Doubtless people will fall all over themselves for the chance to pay a union that doesn't stand up for them. Hey, why not just make principals God while we're at it? And the principal spake, and it was good.

Here's something that this reformy doesn't know--we don't defend individual members "who engage in misconduct or simply aren't up to the job." We represent everyone. We make sure administrators, who in fact are not God, follow the Collective Bargaining Agreement whether or not they feel like it. I can only imagine that if someone in this reformy's family got arrested, he'd decline to hire a lawyer, and say, "Sorry, son, but you engaged in misconduct. I suggest you plead guilty and save the state the cost of a trial."

Oddly, when charter people are embroiled in scandal, they tend to hire lawyers and defend themselves. I can only guess this particular reformy thinks teachers are innocent until proven guilty.

I don't. That's why, despite my well-documented reservations about leadership, I'll stick with the union. And if Mr. Weisberg wants to know where he can stick his advice, he need only ask.

Blogger's Day Off

But please read my piece on the fallacy that is Janus, live at Gotham Gazette now.

UFT Executive Board February 26, 2018--We All Get Along

I came from another meeting and arrived late at 6:08.

Minutes approved.

LeRoy Barr talking about how news SCOTUS judge is silent. DOJ was there on behalf of Janus. Conversation ent way beyond whether agency fee person should pay dues. Argued against collective bargaining. Said unions don’t have that right.

Mulgrew is not here.

Howard Schoor—Moment of silence for Parkland victims. Several resolutions.



Questions

Arthur Goldstein—MORE—:  Nobody responded to us to our request to negotiate resolutions.  Found it disappointing that after that you present two, covering the same ground as ours.  Seems unfair that we receive no notice of resolutions brought up by board, particularly when you consider you passed a resolution to require it from us. 

Schoor: Let us debate what we should do.

Mike Schirtzer—MORE—Is it possible for us to reach out to our counterparts in DOE and request a safety meeting in the next week or two?

Schoor—Thinks it will be favorably received.

Schirtzer—Update on parental leave?

Schoor—Problem is anything we say gets out. We don’t want to take the chance it goes out. When you negotiate we don’t want to negotiate on the blogs. Some things need to remain private. There has been a snag.

Schirtzer—What can we do?

Schoor—We will eventually have a rally. Will be great optics.

Ashraya Gupta—MORE—DeBlasio said this was a teachable moment, that he would walk out. He seems to suggest DOE will have plans. Can we advocate for teachers involved in design?

Schoor—We agree, but it’s more than that. There are different rallies and events. We will be involved but things are not yet finalized. Three upcoming demonstrations. We will be involved with the city. All our members are susceptible. Safety most important issue.

Marcus McArthur—MORE—We’ve talked about problem admin and supes. Our discussions will focus around supes, we hear. How is that going?

Schoor—Brought four problem schools, three high schools in Queens and Manhattan. Don’t want to ID, trying to resolve. Asked borough reps to ID schools. May be movement in three of the four. We may report on them when things are clearer. May send officers to about 20 schools around city. We will try to resolve issues. New chancellor will have new policies.

KJ Ahluwalia—New Action—Can we do something about the sandwiches? I have Indian friends who can cater cheaply. It doesn't have to be expensive.

Schoor—Motion to change menu.

Passes unanimously.

Reports from Districts—

I miss the first one, as someone is talking to me.

Sterling Roberson—Annual Career and tech. ed—educators were honored. Over 60 individuals. Industry partners also selected. Awarded teachers, and schools so plaques will remain. Thanks all from various boroughs.

David Kazansky—Rally on Saturday was fantastic moment. Saw unions, NYSUT, PSE DC37 all in solidarity. 200 UFT. Good for break. Thanks Janella and Anthony Harmon, who spoke.

Schoor—Lutheran Medical Center contract settled. Highest rated by state, and only one with a union. Negotiating committee March 1st. Asked for demands from functional chapters. Have survey responses from 6K of 30K paraprofessionals.

Legislative—Paul Egan—asks for moment of silence because Chelsea lost. We have Lobby Day. There are vacancies. Last chance to sign up.

Ellen Procida—Grievance Dept.—Most of our grievances involve individual members. As a result of a UI we came up with a procedure when paras are arrested, if charges dismissed, they are made whole if they do all in time. They get quick arbitration. Board decided she didn’t notify in timely fashion, but she had. Arbitrator gave full back pay and admonished board.

Two cases with APPR and 13% appeal. We have deadlines to notify board. Two members scheduled to go for 13% also had APPR complaints. Both APPR were successful and members ratings no longer developing.

In elementary schools, graduation is issue. You are allowed day off to go to your child’s graduation. Board has been saying not necessarily for elementary. We go to expedited arbitration. Arbitrator says OP-201 no longer says except elementary, so of course they can go.

Paperwork—issues with lesson plans brought up, then taken out. We didn’t have to go to arbitration. Leave a copy of your lesson plan in folder, particular place, Memo sent—prohibited to do this.

Lots of cases come one person at a time. Grievance process is doing pretty well.

Schoor—paperwork has been successful, but not everything is brought to our attention. CL brings it to principal, then to superintendent, and then arbitration. Teachers don’t have to bring grievance. Not all come forward.

Resolutions

West Virginia Teacher Strike

Sterling Roberson—Asks we support teacher walkout in WV. Teachers walking out for better pay, health care, job security as opposed to pay cuts. Student learning conditions are our working conditions. If we don’t advocate and support fellow members it’s the same issue across the country. We will have to continue to do this with national conditions.

Mike Schirtzer—MORE—As was previously stated, we sent out resolution and offered to work with you. Asks for amendment in lieu of other resolution. Asks we add resolved.

Resolved that UFT will publicize the courageousness of the WV teachers to help educate our members about the power of union activism, including strikes, even when strikes are illegal.

Says this applies in NYC as well. We should support it.

Schoor—Does anyone want to speak against?

None.

Passes

Main resolution—

Passes

Resolution in favor of gun safety

Janella Hinds—Everyone horrified by what we saw. As NYC educators, we think of larger issue. Our kids live in communities where gun violence is pervasive. This resolution supports student activist in FL and around entire country. UFT will stand in support and work with advocates to prevent weapons of war accessible to teenagers.

We are looking at mental health. We need professional learning for intervention strategies. We need to prevent these catastrophes.

Ashraya Gupta—MORE—Would like to add phrase to existing resolved and one additional, including revoking the federal Dickie amendment and banning high capacity ammunition magazines.

Resolved, that the UFT calls on DOE to review school safety plans with faculty at every school.

Dickie amendment says CEC can’t do research on gun violence. As teachers we should be up in arms about this. We need to advocate for more research.

High capacity magazines release multiple shots in short period. For military or having fun at gun range—doesn’t justify them. Even Marco Rubio said he would reconsider. AFT supported this ban last week. We should join them.

School safety plans important. We need to review what we’d do, however, disheartening these drills may be.

After second resolved, please.

Schoor—Let’s debate that.

Passes

Schoor—debate about Dickie amendment.

Sterling Roberson—offers to amend amendment. Strike all related to Dickie amendment. We have to do research to make sure we understand it.

Vin Scaglione:  I didn't hear the debate abuout the amendment.  He did hear about the CDC bans research on NPR.

Arthur Goldstein--MORE--Heard the same.  We should say that we support research into gun violence and end the ban on the agency.

Schoor: We are in agreement in policy.

Hinds—proposes second resolved. That the UFT supports federal research on the impact of gun violence, as number two.

Point of order—Sterling R.—

Schoor—Body can change rules…

Roberson—(I don’t follow his comment)

Ashraya Gupta—MORE—If I withdraw mine, can we vote on Janella’s?

Schoor—We can do what we want. We have conceptual agreement. Janella’s resolved will supersede Sterling’s amendment.

Gupta—Can we add “public health impact” of gun violence?

Michael Friedman—Dickie amendment means feds spent no money at all. Can do no research. Any other issue CDC can evaluate. Dickie himself against amendment.

Vote on resolution with changes.

Passes.

We are adjourned. 7:07

Thanks to KJ Ahluwalia for taking notes when I spoke and also for complaining about those awful sandwiches. 

A Modest Compromise

Sure it’s nuts to have teachers carry guns in classrooms. Trump thinks we’re full of retired military, and sees every schoolteacher as a potential Bruce Willis from Die Hard. In truth, most of us would perform more like Barney Fife from The Andy Griffith Show.

The notion of arming teachers is simply absurd. I’d be shocked if any  other country on earth would even entertain this conversation. Of course, no other country on earth has the National Rifle Association, which poses as a citizen group but is actually funded by gun manufacturers.

This entire conversation is a distraction. I’m not sure whether or not Trump knows it, but I’m sure the smarter people who run and represent the NRA do. This conversation didn’t come up after past mass murders, but people have finally had it with “thoughts and prayers,” and “now is not the time.”

All of a sudden, our news channels are full of brilliant and inspiring teenagers who’ve been through an ordeal. These teenagers have heard the status quo and it isn’t good enough for them. In fact, it isn’t good enough for anyone, and hasn’t been for decades.

In spite of all that, teachers are always looking for solutions. If President Trump wants guns in schools, I think teachers would be willing to compromise so as to accommodate his wishes. Now I personally would not send my daughter to a school in which teachers were armed in the classroom. I see too much possibility for accidental mishap. Who knows when some teacher will finally get so mad at some student that the gun appears?

Police are professionals, and they make mistakes. We aren’t trained like they are, so we’ll likely make more. So let’s forget about sending armed teachers in the classroom. Fortunately for President Trump, we do things other than teach.

Often we find ourselves at odds with administration, and indeed teacher observations carry high stakes these days. I’ve actually sat at meetings with administrators who announced that lessons were unsatisfactory because teachers failed to have students raise green cards when they understood, and red cards when they didn’t.

I’ve seen others write that the only way to gauge comprehension was to have the students raise their left hands when they understood, and right when they didn’t. Maybe it was the other way around. Who knows? Not only that, but the teacher in question was criticized for walking around and looking at student work instead of doing these things.

I’ve been teaching for 33 years. One of the very first things I learned was that asking, “Does everyone understand?” is a waste of breath. Teenagers are not eager to be seen as not understanding things. When I was a 15-year-old boy, my primary interest was 15-year-old girls. There was no way I was going to admit to them I didn’t understand.

In the same way, I very much doubt the, “I don’t understand” red cards will go up the way they should. In fact, the only way I can see how individual students are doing is by looking at their individual work. I’d argue that’s better than taking their word for whether or not they understand. I can also gauge exactly what their needs are in that way. Of course, administrators may see it differently.

Anyway, here’s my proposed compromise with President Trump. We will keep guns in special lockboxes, perhaps in our car trunks. We will open them and take guns out only for meetings with our supervisors. Now I don’t want to paint them with a broad brush. UFT will have the option of labeling supervisors, “Not Insane.” It will be strictly forbidden, in the revised Collective Bargaining Agreement, to bring firearms to meetings with supervisors designated Not Insane.

I’m always happy to come to a reasonable compromise. Not only will this take our children out of harm’s way, but it will also enable NRA to sell additional guns, which is clearly the only thing about which they give a Golly Gosh Darn.

Arming Teachers Is a Scam

The more I think about it, the more I think all this nonsense about teachers carrying is just a diversion. As long as idiots like me stand around and argue teachers shouldn't carry guns, we're not having the real conversations NRA wants to avoid.

First of all, there's no way the insane notion flies in NY anyway. In other places, they're taking this seriously. Wave a little money at people and they'll say, "Yes! I'll carry!" It's going to happen somewhere.

This is a win-win for those who support it. If a teacher succeeds, they can say, "You see? We were right!" If not, they can say, "You see? Teachers SUCK!" That's what government says already, so either way they're proven right.

Meanwhile, every moment we spend discussing this is another moment we aren't discussing gun control. Gun control means less profits for the NRA, and let's face it, the NRA is not a group of sportspeople coming together in common cause. It's the gun manufacturers trying to make a profit by any means necessary. If our children get killed in the process, they're always ready with thoughts and prayers.

I think and pray that they go out of business. I don't expect them to. What I do expect is that every gun they manufacture is one more chance for some lunatic to go out and kill me, you, or some other American. No civilian should own an AR 15. Even the guy who created it thought that. But hey, we're a capitalist country, and if they gun manufacturers can grease enough Senators, well, they're not gonna vote to ban these weapons.

We should change the names of AR-15s to “Marco Rubio” because they are so easy to buy.

— Sarah Chadwick// #NEVERAGAIN (@sarahchad_) February 23, 2018

Three million bucks plus. Rubio came out against the idiotic notion of arming teachers, but even that promoted the conversation. Every minute we talk about this we don't talk about what needs to be done. We need to ban sales of military weapons to civilians. We need to buy back as many of these weapons as possible. We need to close the gun show loophole.

No, this will not be perfect. Yes, criminals who have guns will still have them. But isn't it time we kept them from getting any more? We know this worked in Australia, in the UK, and in other countries. If it is indeed some other thing that causes Americans to go nuts and kill people, it's still a good idea to have fewer guns out there.

Imagine facing a guy with an AR 15 while you have a pistol. Imagine anyone being stupid enough to suggest such a thing. Then imagine me and a million other people talking about it. That's exactly what the NRA wants.

Trump probably doesn't even know.

The Gun Show Loophole Has to Go

I haven't read or heard a whole lot about the gun show loophole. This is important, because without closing it, there is nothing that will keep anyone from getting a gun. You might read about, for example, how terrible Chicago is, how they have the toughest gun laws, and how no law will keep it safe. But most of the guns in Chicago don't come from Chicago.

Now sure, it might be a minor inconvenience to leave your city when you need a gun. But if you're set on having one, you'll do it. NYC has pretty tough gun laws too. However, I drive in and out of New York City every working day of my life. If I want to buy a gun in Floral Park, it's a ten-minute drive. And if I don't like the New York State gun laws, I can always drive to a gun show in another state, like Vermont, and get whatever I want.

People who tell you gun laws don't work are right, in a way. The Florida legislators wouldn't even discuss an assault weapon ban, but declared pornography dangerous. They evidently want to protect their young people from pornography but not assault weapons. I'm not entirely sure why they feel that way. After all, it's 2018, and most people I know, outside of professional DJs, don't even own a pornograph any more.

Assault weapon supporters, though, have a good point when they say an assault weapon ban in Florida might not have much effect. Floridians could always take a road trip to, say, Kentucky, and buy one over there. If you're a lunatic set on killing a lot of people, you're probably willing to spend a few hours in your car to get the necessary tools.

So here's the thing--President Trump and the other people who take money from the GOP are outrageous hypocrites if they say regulation doesn't work. This is because they are now under so much pressure that they're proposing regulations. The only major issue is the regulation they're proposing won't work. I wouldn't be surprised if they had sat around, decided to enact regulation that wouldn't work. That way, when it didn't work, they could say, "See? We tried it your way, but it didn't work."

In this, they remind me of no one more than Bloomberg's DOE. I distinctly recall going to an out-of-building PD and hearing about a new program. I don't remember anymore what it was, but I remember thinking it was plainly ridiculous. I objected to the presenter, and his defense was, "Well, we had to do something."  I also remember my response. I said, "We don't need you to do just anything. We need you to do something that works." The DOE hack had no response for that.

Trump is proposing better background checks, but as long as the gun show loophole is open, anyone can get whatever they want without one. I don't believe mental illness makes people violent, and I read somewhere that only 3% of those who suffer from it are violent. Nonetheless, people who suffer from mental illness ought not to have access to military weapons. You might find that discriminatory, but it's not. No one but the military ought to have military weapons.

The game the NRA and the politicians owned by it is playing is saying that those who suffer from mental illness ought not to have access to any firearms at all. Maybe they're right, but what they're really saying is those who don't suffer from mental illness ought to have access to assault weapons. That way, they sell more assault weapons. And frankly, the NRA is not just a group of gun owners. It's a lobby for gun manufacturers.

What's more important, gun sales, or our safety, and the safety of our children? That's a pretty easy answer for me. In America, in 2018, we need to ban the sale of assault weapons, buy back as many as we can from existing owners, and arrange for fewer guns out there. The notion of arming teachers does precisely the opposite, and every other proposal Trump is now talking up serves only to maintain the status quo while feigning action.

Trump Doesn't Hear You--He Wants You to Carry a Gun and Leave Him Alone

Trump needed a cheat sheet for his listening session yesterday. Take a look at number five, which says, "I hear you." It's kind of remarkable that anyone needs a reminder to acknowledge hearing the people he's there to listen to, but that's what you have there.

It's not a big secret that Trump is considering enabling the arming of teachers. Back when Trump was running against Hillary, he denied having taken this position. But now that he's painted into a corner, NRA seems to have decided he needs to appear to be taking action.

So now, let's arm 20% of the teachers in any given school building, he says. It's not a big secret that this has neither been tried nor worked anywhere either. But it will sell more guns rather than fewer, and that's good enough for NRA. There are readily available examples of massive gun bans working, and that's not what NRA wants. After all, they paid over 30 million dollars for this President. It's like NRA people sat around in a room somewhere, asking, "How can we pretend to solve the problem and sell more guns in the process?" A WIN-WIN!

In Australia, in 1996, they decided they'd had enough of gun violence. They bought back a bunch of guns, made military weapons unavailable to the public, and they haven't had another incident since. A UK school massacre led to a gun ban there. They banned semi-automatic weapons and made gun registration mandatory. In the United States, it's pretty well known that kids who can't buy beer can buy guns.

Trump doesn't want to deal with that. He has that 30 million dollars from the NRA, and for that, there is no way he will go for a ban on military weapons. There is no way he will move to end the gun show loophole. Until he does both, pretty much anyone can buy pretty much anything. I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that NRA gave the OK for him to oppose bump stocks. Maybe, there's some possibility he'll demand age limits. But even if he does, there are always the gun shows.

As for teachers packing, I'm a teacher. My job, believe it or not, is incredibly complicated. I have dozens of teenagers in front of me, each and every one is different, and each and every one needs to be treated differently. I can talk this way to that one, but I have to talk that way to this one. I can argue with this one, because she'll argue back, but not with that one, because he will melt away, disappear, and I'll never see him again. If you're a teacher, you know what I mean.

Before entertaining the ridiculous notion of arming teachers, worth considering the NYPD stat for hitting their target in gun fight is 18%

— Anthony Bourdain (@Bourdain) February 19, 2018

 

If you're Donald Trump, you think the classroom will be a safer place with a gun in it. You think that teachers have nothing else to do, and will instantly transform into Vin Diesel and hop into action when killers come in. Evidently, when the criminal enters the classroom with an AR-15, the teacher will pull out a handgun and subdue him. If I were a killer, I'd make it a point to enter the classroom and shoot the teacher first, just in case. I don't think you need to be a rocket scientist to come to that conclusion.

But what if I manage to get my gun out in time? What if I miss? What if I miss and hit one of the kids? What if I miss, hit one of the kids, and the gunman puts down seven or twelve more while I deal with my shock? What if I'm in the middle of a really great lesson and don't want to interrupt it by shooting at the gunman? And what if I have a nervous breakdown, and rather than scream at the kid who made me mad, shoot him dead? Maybe I'm tired of calling his parents.

I don't think I'd do anything like that, but who knows? Cops aren't perfect. They make mistakes, and being cops is their job. It's not my job. I don't even want to be dean. Why do I want to deal every single day with the most problematic students in the building? Sorry, but it's all I can do to deal with the problematic students in my classes. Other people want to be deans. Should they be armed? I think not.

Marco Rubio, on CNN last night, wondered how a SWAT team would know that a teacher with a gun was a good guy. I don't much trust Rubio, but that's a very good question.  Rubio looked like he was fighting for his life, ready to say whatever necessary to make up for taking that three million bucks from the NRA. Maybe they allow him liberties to save his ass. Who knows?

Regardless, here's what Trump's game is--he will obfuscate. All this talk about teachers having guns is absolute nonsense. Here's what Trump says:

"A gun-free zone to a maniac, because they're all cowards, a gun-free zone is 'let's go in and attack,'" he said. "I really believe if these cowards knew that the school was well-guarded from the standpoint of pretty much having professionals with great training, I think they wouldn't go into the schools to start with, it would pretty much solve your problem."

Now Trump may know a little bit about cowardice, what with his five draft deferments. Still, the fact is a lot of people who shoot up schools do so because they are desperately depressed. They aren't worried about getting shot. They're fine with that. Sometimes they shoot themselves, having taken down a bunch of people with them. Trump's point, like most of what he says, is absolute nonsense. But NRA allows it because it won't fly where people aren't insane, and where they are, more guns would be sold.

Still, it's something. And that's all he needs. He can say he's tried to do something. Then he can blame the bleeding hearts for not accepting his idiotic ideas. But we know what works. We need fewer, not more guns. We need fewer,  not more military weapons. They should be banned, no civilians should have them, and manufacturers who sell them to civilians should be imprisoned.

We know what works. We also know what doesn't work, and that's pretty much whatever comes out of Donald Trump's mouth, all of which is bought and paid for by the National Rifle Association.

Guns in Schools

The knee-jerk reaction to the Florida shooting, among jerks both with and without knees, was that we need more guns in schools. While we're on the subject of jerks, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos thinks we need to have a robust conversation about them.

Now Betsy DeVos is all about using schools to make her rich friends even richer. I don't imagine there are a whole lot of gun manufacturers moonlighting as cabdrivers, so why not help them out?

DeVos had previously not made a big issue over the right to bear arms, focusing more on the threat of armed bears. But hey, whatever pulls money out of the pockets of working people and relocates it to those of people who least need it is good with DeVos and all her fellow Trumpies.

The public argument goes like this--the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Like those who make such arguments, I've watched a lot of television. I have observed that good guys with guns tend to do better than bad guys with guns. This is true from 1950s westerns right up to the present day. Here's the thing, though--while as a teacher I consider myself one of the good guys, I haven't got the remotest notion what to do with a gun. And even if I were trained how to use it, I have no idea how I'd react to a bad guy with a gun.

Here's another fact--the fewer guns we have, the fewer people will be shot with them. Trump talks a big ball game about guns, at times even suggesting that "second amendment people" might take down Hillary Clinton. But when it comes his time to address the NRA, guns are not allowed. The Secret Service are expert in protecting the President, and they determined the best way to do so was to remove guns from the equation altogether.

If that's the way to keep people safe, our kids ought to be kept safe in precisely the same manner. Where there are no guns, there is no one getting shot, not intentionally, not by accident, not at all. My home has no guns, and no gun accidents either. My house does have a dog, and we do have dog accidents now and then. Sometimes he pees on the floor and I clean it up. Sometimes I accidentally kick him if I don't see him. I pet him and apologize and he seems to understand. But no one goes to the hospital or dies.

President Ronald Reagan was shot in 1981. He was surrounded by good guys with guns. In fact, as Secret Service, they were the best trained good guys with guns in the world. It certainly could have been worse, but even so it was unacceptable. Teachers can be taught about gun use, but we won't be the best trained good guys in the world, and hey, things on TV don't always reflect reality. Once the bad guys shoot the good guy with a gun, it's open season on said good guy's students.

As if that weren't enough, there was an armed guard at the Florida high school where 17 people were murdered. The guard never saw the shooter. Here's how we deal with this--we stop selling assault weapons to Americans. These weapons should be the exclusive province of the military, and the people who offer them to others are criminals, whether or not the law says so.

In Australia, they found a way to deal with mass shootings. They bought back a bunch of guns and made them unavailable. While that won't be perfect, it will at least curb the rampant availability of such weapons. We also need to close the gun show loophole that pretty much renders all state regulations moot.

If I have to insure my car for liability, you damn well ought to have to insure your gun for the same. It's nice that Trump, who took 30 million dollars from the NRA, is now paying lip service to this issue. But we need a lot more than that. Bringing guns into classrooms is one of the very stupidest notions I've ever heard in my life.

Related: Newt Gingrich states arming teachers is only long-term solution.

And a Child Shall Lead Them

I'm floored by the sheer volume of reports I get about the Florida school killings. At every moment there's another report, another angle. Some are just beyond the pale, For example, the Washington Post just reported that the Trumpies see it as a reprieve from all the negative press they're receiving. Can you imagine how bad things must be that a mass murder looks good to them?

Naturally, you get the bought-and-paid-for GOP Senators offering thoughts and prayers, and saying that now is not the time to talk about fewer mass murders. And Trump, who took $30 million from NRA, doesn't talk about stopping assault rifle sales until we figure out what the hell is going on, because that kind of talk is reserved for Muslims.

90% of Americans support expanded background checks for guns. NRA, flush with cash, buys its way around us. Walter Mosley has a great piece in the Nation about how it's commonplace to buy your way around democracy, and how $2000 bought him political access unavailable to most of us. Yet GOP flunkies like Paul Ryan say the same thing time and time again. Let's not rush into things before we have the facts, Let's not have a knee jerk reaction. And time and time again, we do nothing.

But then you see Emma Gonzalez speak, and you know she and her classmates can't be ignored. They were there. They're not accepting thoughts and prayers, or the nonsense that passes for caring. And they cannot and will not go away quietly.

When your children act like leaders and your leaders act like children, you know change is coming.

— Mikel Jollett (@Mikel_Jollett) February 19, 2018

And indeed there is truth to that, as our ostensible leader, Donald J. Trump, is all over the place frantically blaming everyone but himself. You know, it's the FBI's fault. They're so focused on whether or not Russia swayed our election that they missed this. And most importantly, it's not his fault. If children were murdered it isn't his fault. If Russia bought the election it isn't his fault.

He blames Schiff, Clinton, Obama, the FBI, life, the universe, and everyone and everything but himself, at one point putting forth the juvenile, "wasn't I a great candidate?" question. You know, I'm frequently in our department office when the supervisor is out. Kids come in, having been booted by their teachers. I ask, "Why are you here?" They say, "I don't know." I ask, "What did you do?" They say, "Nothing. The teacher is crazy." After a little digging, things generally appear a little more complicated.

Make no mistake, the President of the United States is that child, crying that he didn't do anything and that nothing is his fault. And Emma Gonzalez is the voice of truth. Her voice is so powerful that even bought-and-paid-for Donald Trump is now paying lip service to actually doing something.

But Emma and her classmates will not be bought off with trinkets, and they aren't going away. Nor is the FBI. Nor is Mueller. The kid in the office isn't getting away clean, and neither is the juvenile at the White House.

Test Prep or Participation? Teachers or Silly Putty?

Every day I read another story about where education is headed. Today it looks like they're moving toward play-based education for young children in Boston. I'm good with that. It makes sense to me to let children explore, rather than trying to transform them into efficient, test-taking automatons. Children need chances to be children, or they'll grow up into Donald Trumps, having temper tantrums on Twitter.

On the other hand, we face incredible pressure to have kids pass tests, and it starts early. While NY State has temporarily relieved teachers of grades 4-8 from consequences of flawed test scores, the rest of us are regularly touched by them. It's problematic because we have no idea where they're going, ever. Even assuming the tests are reasonable or fair this year, which they probably aren't, we have no idea where they are headed.

A few years back, Diane Ravitch compared NY State tests to national NAEP tests and determined them to be flawed. She was roundly criticized as alarmist by the reformies. But a year later, the NY Times and others began to agree with her, and it was clear the tests were dumbed down. And what had the press concluded before this revelation? That Bloomberg was a genius, of course.

Shortly thereafter Bill Gates said, "Let there be Common Core," and there was Common Core, and it was Good, according to Reformy John King. Reformy John declared that only around a quarter of students would pass, and it was so. And the papers, rather than walking back the Bloomberg genius theory, cried that the teachers all suck and must be fired.

And thus we ended up with this system, under which test scores determine whether or not we get to keep our jobs. Sometimes it works in our favor. In a school like mine, where scores are generally good, it helps more than it hurts. Other schools are not so lucky.

And even as we have this veritable Sword of Damocles over our heads, we're told we have to follow the Danielson rubric, and that participation is key. It's funny because I personally want my kids to participate as much as possible. I'm trying to get them to learn basic English, and I can't conceive of any way to do this effectively without, you know, using it. I want them to speak as much as possible.

On the other hand, they're taking a test called NYSESLAT, and my results are somehow tied to it. I've administered this test, and sat in front of bewildered newcomers grilling them over the fine points of Hammurabi's Code. I have no idea what this test is designed to measure, but my best guess is it's looking at how Common Corey the kids are. I don't spend a single minute trying to make students Common Corey, so I don't think I'm helping them with this test.

On the other hand, over at Moskowitz Academies they don't even take the kids I serve. If there are ESL students in Eva's place, they didn't just arrive last week with no knowledge of English. Eva can test prep them to death, or as near as the law allows, and squeeze better scores out of children. She can dump those who don't pass muster back into the public schools, and replace them with no one. And then we read that she has the Secret Sauce and we all suck.

So it's tough to determine, in a passive-aggressive system like ours, which way to go. Do we test prep and appease the MOSL score, or have the kids participate so as to get better observations? And that, of course, does not even consider the very real possibility of your supervisor being delusional, psychopathic, or on a personal vendetta against working teachers.

There's a saying, "You can't please them all." And it's true. You can't emphasize student participation and expect it will test-prep. And you can't test-prep and expect students to be enthusiastic about your class. I've done both, and I know what I prefer.

But that doesn't mitigate the fact that today's teachers are routinely expected, ridiculously, to be all things to all people. That's more than I can do.

How do you deal with these conflicting demands?

Does Catastrophic Insurance Protect You or Is It a Practice in Catastrophe?

I signed up for the catastrophic medical insurance offered by NYSUT, not expecting a catastrophe, but you never know. I never thought the insurance itself would be catastrophic, but I should've thought things through. After all, I used NYSUT auto insurance for many years, and it wasn't until I bought a car in 2014 that I learned I was paying almost double what Allstate charges.

I asked the company, Mercer Consumer, for payroll deduction so I wouldn't have to send them checks all the time. If I recall correctly, there was some kind of discount associated with that. A few weeks ago, I got a note that I needed to send a payment or my account would be canceled. I figured that was nonsense since I asked for payroll deduction, so I tossed the letter.

The other day, however, I got an email from UFT saying the first payment must be by check. That surprised me since the packet stated no such thing. I'd have written a check immediately if only I still had the bill. The email instructed me to call Mercer, which I did,

I was encouraged to hear, in their recording, they had a devoted line to the NYSUT insurance. Their message said if you signed up for payroll deduction to ignore the bill. I decided to wait on the line to make sure, but the message said it would be 39 minutes to speak to a human. I declined. They probably told me my call was important to them, but I always figure if my calls are important to you, you'll, you know, answer them.

A friend in the office told me they had deducted from his check, and I went and found they had not deducted from mine. This grieved me deeply. I therefore called UFT Welfare Fund. I sat on hold while I waited to speak to an operator. I told the operator I wanted to speak to someone about it, and she put me on hold again. I entered my social security number and got placed on hold yet again.

I spoke to a woman at the Welfare Fund who told me I should call Mercer. I asked her why, then, I had gotten an email from Geof Sorkin, UFT Welfare Fund Executive Director. Naturally, she put me on hold again to check this out. When she came back, she told me that I would have to call Mercer. T

Unfortunately, I have this job and stuff, and my ability to sit 39 minutes and wait for Mercer is sorely limited. Sometimes I have to, you know, teach classes, and for some reason my principal frowns on leaving my speaker phone on so I can complete personal calls during class time. Also, at meetings, people seem to find that disrespectful.

I looked up Mercer online and found an email address:

 customerservice.service@mercer.com

I described my issue and left my NYSUT ID, which I have on a card in my wallet. If you're having the same problem, give them a holler. An autobot wrote back, saying I'd have a response in two days. Well, it beats staying on hold for 39 minutes.

On the other hand, I have a week off coming up. I suppose I could devote one day to sitting around and waiting for Mercer to respond to my call. Too bad they didn't just deduct it from my check. After all, I sent them a signed authorization.

You know, this is the only non-third-world country I know of where you need catastrophic medical insurance. It's also the only such country I know of where there is such a thing as Fox News and millions who watch it. That's probably how the Koch Brothers and their pals are able to disenfranchise so many voters that we now have Donald Trump as President.

I'll keep working to get the insurance I'm willing to pay for. Hopefully, we'll all keep working to render it obsolete.

APPR and the Zombie Teacher Apocolypse

There's a lot of talk about evaluation systems being revamped, because that, evidently, is what you do with teacher evaluation systems, and you do it almost every year. NYSUT has declared it's time. It's odd, to me, that this is necessary because every new iteration is represented as the Bestest Thing Ever, not only by the state, but also by UFT President Michael Mulgrew.

I remember when we fought to have all 22 components of Danielson counted, even though Bloomberg wanted only seven, and it was a Great Victory. I remember when we reduced it to eight, and that too was a Great Victory. I remember the Great Victory when we were able to use artifacts, and the other Great Victory when they were eliminated.

Mulgrew just told the Executive Board that we were not going back to total control by principals. It's funny, because when junk science opponents (like me and Diane Ravitch) object to said junk science, we're told that we support 100% principal control. That's a double logical fallacy. First, it's a strawman, because I've never heard an APPR opponent say any such thing, nor have I said it myself. Second, it's a black and white fallacy, suggesting that if you don't support junk science, the only alternative is total control for principals.

Another bad argument came up at the DA the other day. A chapter leader got up and declared that the junk science saved her rating. I believe that. I've seen junk science raise ratings in my building. In fact, I was very happy to see negative ratings raised by junk science in my building. Nonetheless, there's a world outside of my building, and in that world, teachers rated well by supervisors have seen ratings tumble because of junk science.

APPR proponents will argue, correctly, that this can be mitigated by the matrix. But if you're rated developing by your supervisor, and your test grades get ineffective, the system say you are ineffective. I know people who've fallen under that category, and these people, under new supervisors in new schools, managed to blossom in both supervisor rating and junk science.

Personally, I don't believe the nonsense about earth having been invaded by a plague of zombie bad teachers. I mean, in any large group there will be outliers both high and low. But every time I've heard about the need for new teacher evaluations, it's been accompanied by talk of getting rid of the bad teachers.

It's funny to me, at least, because I regularly encounter far more examples of bad administration than bad teaching. You have some supervisor who hates you and everything you stand for, and therefore you need to watch every word you say to everyone, because if they hear even a hint of something they can write a letter about, they blow it into World War III.

There are certainly ways to improve our system. The first would be to reduce minimum observations to two, unless perhaps you need more support or request more guidance. Most important, though, is this nonsense about having the burden of proof on the teachers to prove they are not incompetent. How do you prove a negative? And isn't it fundamentally un-American to be guilty until proven innocent?

Nattering nabobs of negativity will argue that it's not so bad because all you're losing is your job, as opposed to your life and liberty. I'd argue that losing your income and health care these days could certainly lead to loss of life, as it does for thousands of Americans annually. I'm for removing authority from principals, particularly crazy ones. But I'd mitigate it with something better than a straight crapshoot.

Also, while it's not all that trendy, I'd like to see the issue of insane administrators addressed. Were that to happen, we might not need to rely on convoluted and virtually incomprehensible test scores. If the administrators are so bad that throwing the dice and hoping for the best is an improvement over their judgment, we're ignoring the elephant in the room. Unless you have furniture suitable for elephants, this is something we can't ignore.