The Grand Coalition Against Teachers - and a Bonus Video of - Me at the PEP

Hey, is it July already? You mean we've passed the last day of school? My how one loses track in retirement.

...anyone who brings up out-of-school factors such as poverty is both defending the status quo of public education and claiming that schools can do nothing to overcome the life circumstances of poor children. The response is silly and, by now, tiresome. Some teachers will certainly be able to help compensate for the family backgrounds and out-of-school environments of some students. But the majority of poor children will not get all the help they need: their numbers are too great, their circumstances too severe, and resources too limited. Imagine teachers from excellent suburban public schools transferring en masse to low-performing, inner-city public schools. Would these teachers have as much success as they did in the suburbs? Would they be able to overcome the backgrounds of 15.6 million poor children? Even with bonus pay, would they stay with the job for more than a few years? Common sense and experience say no, and yet the reformers insist they can fix public schools by fixing the teachers.

The Grand Coalition Against Teachers, By Joanne Barkan - posted at TFT (The Frustrated Teacher)

 I know we're preaching to the choir here, but Joanne Barkan's article should give you much ammunition when you get into those July 4th arguments with teacher bashers. Here's the link.

Where Barkan doesn't go in this piece – and there may be follow-ups – is the motivation of the ed deformers in the "blame the teacher" campaigns:  Defanging the unions (non-unionized charters, Teach for America/Educators 4 Excellence shock troops, merit pay) - not that the unions have put up a strong fight - but at least they have the ability to bring a unified teacher force to the table. In the ed deform world each teacher is on an individual contract and competing with each other. That is the holy grail of ed deform. While luring teachers with the promise of higher pay through merit pay, they will be able to lower the average teacher salary substantially - think of the south.

This ties in to Barkan's next article on the rise of education entrepreneurship where there's a whole lot of money to be made out of education. First you kill of the only force capable of putting up opposition. Then you milk the cow until a generation later - or less - it is clear what it was all about. By then it is too late.

Thus, my intense  anger at the UFT/AFT/NEA (which opens its meetings today in Chicago) for basically laying down in front of the ed deform juggernaut. Every single UFT official talks about how they are not against charter schools or even co-locations when they are done right. When I talk to them they seem to understand what is afoot but are helpless to get in the way other than trying to make the procedure work - procedures set up in a stacked deck. Thus the law suit to "make them do it the right way." I won't get into the whys of how the union functions because that is a longer story about the ideology behind the AFT/UFT, an issue some of us will be exploring this summer in study groups.

Here is a short video of my speech to the PEP on Monday about charters.

http://youtu.be/UVBC9_YB1lE



-----------
Check out Norms Notes for a variety of articles of interest: http://normsnotes2.blogspot.com/. And make sure to check out the side panel on right for news bits.

For Shame! UFT Victory Lap at Settlement Pilloried

--we sold out - not just ourselves and the communities we live in, but just as importantly, the families we serve. For shame! ---Loretta Prisco

If I were a parent of kids in the schools, I would be pissed. Parents and students supported the teachers, rallied with them, made phone calls, etc. There will be approximately 7,000 teachers less than a few years ago - and the student population has grown. Increased class size, less support for kids, many schools with closed libraries, not getting gym twice a week, and we call it a "victory"! For whom? The only way that we can get what we all need in this city is to raise revenue from those who can afford it. Wouldn't it be wonderful if teachers raised their voices in one loud unified "no" to this settlement?

Don't hold your breath as the mayor's tactics of threats and intimidation worked once again. Funny how if you say there is no money time and again - and your leaders go along - you begin to believe it. Is there a surplus? Does Tweed spend money on wasted projects like water? Should the UFT/AFT leadership take a stand on the way easy money appears when, oh, say you want a cool billion to go to bombing Libya. We know that a stand won't shake the money loose but the union is the only entity that could be out there making the case and trying to win people over to the revenue fight. Even though we started hearing "Wall St." words from the leadership, when push came to shove, the very concept of pointing out where the money is has disappeared from the lexicon.

I find it interesting that even some blogging friends have been looking at the deal between the UFT and Bloomberg through the narrow lens of the teacher. Loss of sabbaticals for a year? Many people think they were gone anyway. The ATRs as subs has created a but of concern. I agree - it is always worse than the UFT will present it at the DA on Tuesday, the last day of school, a day when people like to go out with their colleagues at school but now have to go to a meeting where they will really not have any decision making power.

We cannot separate the ATR issue from the closing school issue. The creation of ATRs was done jointly by the UFT and the DOE in the 2005 contract. That allowed them to accelerate the closing of schools. This agreement is part of the overall plan to force out ATRs after schools are closed by making the job as intolerable as possible. It opens the door to remove them from their school support network and as we know day to day subs - even experienced teachers - struggle. Suddenly subs teaching goodness knows what will be given the worst classes and written up as incompetents. Add that pressure to all the others and people will begin to flee - and the UFT leadership will do little to help and support them. Is this a way out for them without having to be charged with selling out ATRs?

But most important are these comments by retired teacher Loretta Prisco who still mentors new teachers about what this agreement does to the teaching/learning conditions. There is lots more to say - like does this mean that Christine Quinn - that Lilly livered anti- LIFO Bloomberg suckup will be the UFT choice for mayor as the UFT will argue mayoral control with her in charge would be better?

The threatened loss of 6,400 teaching jobs captured so many, kids or not, teachers or not, to this fight. We should have spoken in one, loud, unified voice ---- we had the pressure going, the Progressive Caucus of the City Council was pushing the Alternate Budget as proposed by the May 12th Coalition, we had the support of the community ---Loretta Prisco

Here is Loretta's full statement:

Looking at news reports, a teacher asked me to summarize what we really lost. After all, it didn't look like we lost much to save over 4,000 jobs. This was my response. We lost lots a golden opportunity - more than we will ever get back.


Specifically, no sabbaticals 2012-2013. You can count on this being the beginning of the end of sabbaticals. One rarely gets back what one gives up. We have NEVER gotten back anything given up. When I began in the system, at the very beginning of the union, every contract was a win-win. And every year, as our contract improved, so did teaching and learning conditions, because they are tightly woven together. Now not only do we give back when a contract is negotiated, we give back when we are not even negotiating and don't even have a contract!


Also, we must look larger at the fact that will not be filling those positions lost by attrition. Principals have been told to U rate and harass teachers, and I think purposefully. Let's look at motive. The Mayor is not concerned with maintaining good teachers. I don't think I have to convince you of that. All he and the Chancellors past and present under Mayoral Control, want are drones - young, will do as they are told, are cheap and will never collect a pension - and that they go steadily through a revolving door. Klein said years ago that he wanted to increase teaching by computers - cheaper and more controlled - with big contracts going to tech companies and those who sell programs. U ratings are designed to reduce the teaching force by pushing teachers out. We have lost over 6,000 positions in the last few years while our enrollment continues to grow. Translate that to increased class size. More on that later.


Having ATRs work as per diem subs? First of all, all the ATRs that I have met, have been doing the work of per diems by covering classes. So I am very suspicious of this. It is not saving money, so why was it negotiated as a financial issue. This has not been spelled out and I am concerned that this will be making it tougher for those who have done nothing wrong, except dedicated their teaching lives in underperforming schools.


Now let's look at what this has done to the communities we serve.


To save teaching jobs, (to keep class size down) parents joined forces with us - wrote letters, rallied, demonstrated, went up to Albany, and signed petitions. It was encouraging to hear parents say such nice things about teachers over the last few months. For too long we have been kept at each others throats. What did we do? How did we say thanks to our allies? Saved our own jobs ( no doubt important and I am not minimizing that) but we did not continue the battle to fill all positions so that class size would be maintained. We folded our tent and went away, leaving our allies out there alone. I am embarrassed by that.


But the reality was that we were never going to lose those positions, and Mulgrew knew that. The Mayor's motivation was political, not financial. He used the threats to defeat LIFO, but didn't get it. So Mulgrew and the Mayor "negotiated" a giveback. They come up winning. Our kids come up losing. We went to a party about 10 days ago and met an old friend who works for city government. He was clear - there will be no cuts and the announcement will come on Friday - and it did.


Now let's look at the really big picture - truthfully the city does have reduced funds - and it will get worse. The answer is the dilemma is to raise revenue, NOT CUT SERVICES. And Mulgrew knows that. He talks about the millionaire tax - and "we will work on it". Not good enough. We must get funds - now. For the super rich, with all of their loopholes and much of their wealth from capital gains, a millionaire's tax will undoubtedly help the city big time, and will mean that most of the wealthy will be paying under $10,000. They will not leave the city, as the Mayor keeps insisting that they will because in reality, it will cost them so little. But it is not just the millionaire's, but the banks and corporations that are profiting handsomely, no sinfully. Mulgrew doesn't even mention it.


So what will happen in our schools and communities?

• Senior services have been reduced drastically over the last few years. Funding for elder abuse has been cut.
• Meals provided for the homebound are down to one meal a day in 4 boroughs - try surviving on that.
• Culturals (providing so many wonderful enrichments to our kids) have been cut ( the Noble Collection alone that provides wonderful programs has been cut 85%).
• Our streets will be dirtier.
• Library hours cut.
• Literacy programs will be cut for the parents of the kids we teach.
• Our roads and bridges will continue to be in constant disrepair.
• Services for immigrant families curtailed.
• It looks like other city workers - probably parents of kids we teach - will lose their jobs. We know how unemployment effects families. And continues to put a stress on the city's financial resources. Council member Recchia from Brooklyn recommended that we cut the number of agents that collect money from the parking meters (how much do you think they make?) - and not a word about those who stealing from this city with tax loopholes, no-bid contracts, etc.
• AIDS funding and other city services will be compromised.

The list goes on and on. Enumerating the list is to depressing for Sunday morning. The threatened loss of 6,400 teaching jobs captured so many, kids or not, teachers or not, to this fight. We should have spoken in one, loud, unified voice. Just to say, we had the pressure going, the Progressive Caucus of the City Council was pushing the Alter Budget as proposed by the May 12th Coalition, we had the support of the community, and we sold out - not just ourselves and the communities we live in, but just as importantly, the families we serve. For shame!


Loretta Prisco

---------------------

Check out Norms Notes for a variety of articles of interest: http://normsnotes2.blogspot.com/. And make sure to check out the side panel on right for news bits.

OUTRAGE NUMBER 2 OF THE DAY: EVA CALLS DIVERSIONARY PROTEST AT UFT AT SAME TIME AS AUTISTIC CHILDREN BOYCOTT

With parents of autistic children set to boycott a Brooklyn school being invaded by Moskowitch and rally at Tweed, Moskowitz is trying to draw press coverage away from them. But of course since they will arrive at Tweed at 10:30 there is still time for the press to cover their arrival if not the official start of their protest at the school at 8:30AM. Ed Notes will be there to cover even if not other press shows up.
See my earlier post for the parent press release:cOutrage at Eva Moskowitz: Parents of Brooklyn Autistic Students to Boycott PS 368K, Vow Not To Move Aside for Success Academy Charter Invasion/PEP Monday Night

YES, CONTACT  Contact: Eva press flack Kerri Lyon  917-348-2191  to express your outrage

FROM LEONIE HAIMSON:

See the just-released press advisory  from Eva’s press/political machine below. 

This new protest tomorrow morning appears to be cleverly designed to draw media away from the long-planned boycott planned by the parents of autistic children at PS 368Kat 8:30 AM tomorrow, and their march to Tweed,  to protest the co-location of Brooklyn Success Academy at their school. 

Contrast their protest, organized by real life public school  parents who wrote their own press advisory, to the advisory put out by  Kerri Lyon, a PR flack now Senior Vice President at SKDKnickerbocker, one of the largest PR firms in NYC, hired by Eva to handle her media relations. 

Kerri was originally hired away as a reporter from Channel 2 news by DOE in 2007 at a large salary, reportedly to put a “good spin” on their news, and then was subsequently by the Charter School Center, probably at an even higher salary. 

Her official bio credits her for the following achievement: “She even booked Chancellor Klein on “The Colbert Report.” (though Colbert’s chief booker is married to Jon Alter, and is a big charter school booster herself, so this was probably pretty easy.)

http://www.skdknick.com/about/kerri-lyon/

her advisory follows the one from the parents of PS 368K.

Outraged Parents of Brooklyn Autistic Students to Boycott PS 368K and Vow Not To Move Asidefor a Brooklyn Success Academy Charter School Invasion

What, When and Where: On Monday, June 27 at 8:30 am, courageous, fed-up parents from PS 368K will gather for a press conference in front of their school at the IS 33 campus on 70 Tompkins Ave. Brooklyn. Then they will march with their children and travel from this site to Tweed at 52 Chambers Street, NYC for a second press conference at 10:30 am.

Who: Basilica E. L. Johnson, P.T.A. President of The Star/P368K program in District 75, is also the parent of a 10 year old autistic son, who attends this public school program of about 100 special needs students.. She has organized a parent walk-out to protest the co-location of Success Academy at K03370 Tompkins Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11206 in School District 14.

Basilica EL-Johnson, email: tom.n.tinys.house@gmail.com  and   732-688-8099(cell) 

Contact: Kerri Lyon

917-348-2191

PARENTS PICKET UFT HEADQUARTERS

(NY, NY)—On Monday, June 27 at 8:30 a.m., parents will picket outside UFT headquarters to demand the teachers union stop jeopardizing their children’s futures and allow their schools to open as planned. The UFT and NAACP have refused to withdraw their lawsuit hurting 7,000 children, despite the fact that all the claims in their lawsuit have been addressed.

With some charter schools set to start the school year in as early as  37 days, these 7,000 families have no idea if their children’s schools will be able to open.

WHAT: Parents Picket Outside UFT Headquarters

WHO: Parents affected by UFT and NAACP's ongoing lawsuit

WHEN: Monday, June 27. Parents will picket starting at 8:30 a.m.

WHERE: Outside UFT Headquarters, 52 Broadway, NY, NY

Sighs of Relief as UFT Snatches Defeat From the Jaws of Victory

Friday, June 25, 10:30PM -
LAST UPDATED SAT JUNE 26 - 8:30AM
SEE IN DEPTH ANALYSIS BY REALITY BASED EDUCATOR

 Planning a sabbatical next year (2012-13)? Forget it. UFT has suspended them, perhaps with other givebacks, to avoid the emergency layoffs that a 3.2 billion dollar surplus necessitates.  -Arthur Goldstein, chapter leader at Francis Lewis HS on Facebook

Protesters have come up the steps and are yelling, banging and chanting loudly outside front door of Tweed. Feels like Tweed is under attack- Tweet from Lindsay Christ, NY 1
 
Looks like our pals at Bloombergville are not happy. Imagine if they were joined by teachers with cancelled sabbaticals and the ATRs. Both group are losers in this settlement.

I use "relief" in the headline with irony as people are rejoicing over the deal between the UFT and Bloomdud to avoid layoffs. Bloomberg was bluffing, trying to use the layoff threat to browbeat everyone into giving up seniority. When that didn't work it was clear he wasn't going to lay off his favorite Teach for America and E$E newbies. We were also reporting a high number of retirees and scuttlebutt from the schools that so many 3rd teachers who had their tenure extended were disgusted enough to leave the system. We also felt that the system could not be run without some level of chaos if it lost so much personnel. [NOTE: thanks to Unity slug for pointing out that sabbaticals are for the 2012-13 year - still a loss and another part of the contract sold off even if people think it is minor - anyway, who is going to teach long enough to even get a sabbatical?]

So given that Bloomberg was in a box, the UFT handed him a crowbar.

Here was a chance to force them to cut out the bullshit consultants and high priced programs but someone blinked.

On the other hand, next year when Bloomberg tries it again who will believe him? But by that time they may have browbeaten seniority protections out of the system. If I were an ATR I would be worried as they are target number one. Is there anything in this deal that opens up the door to going after them since they are Bloomberg's major target?

Then there's the fact that even though no layoffs, there is attrition - with retirements and the fed-ups gone how many less personnel will there be?

Well, by the reactions, people seem happy so far because they look at this short term. I'm with Reality Based Educator who commented on this post:

I think the agreement should have been that the CityTime and DOE tech consultants work as per diem subs, but only in their own districts. Well, at least the ones that haven't been arrested for stealing.

Leonie Haimson summarizes court hearings in the school closure/co-location lawsui - June 22

On June 22 Oral arguments were heard in the UFT/NAACP school closing/co-location lawsuit. State Supreme Court Judge Paul Feinman’s courtroom was packed, mostly with attorneys and reporters, so crowded that initially the guards let in only about five unaffiliated observers (including me.) The cadre of charter school lawyers was especially immense; about 25 of them, all apparently pro-bono. The city sent a handful of lawyers, including Michael Best, and the UFT/NAACP had a small contingent from Stroock, Stroock and Lavan.

Chuck Moerdler, Stroock’s senior litigator, started by saying he had only three main points: One, that the case could be streamlined, because DOE agrees that they need approval from the State Education Department before they can close 12 out of the 19 schools; and yet they have not even filed any applications to do so, as the State Education Commissioner confirmed just that morning.

Second, last year, there was an signed agreement between the UFT and DOE to provide extra help to these schools, as part of settling the previous lawsuit, including an “education plan” that would provide them with more teachers in the ATR pool (absent teacher reserve) and support in myriad ways.

Whether or not that agreement was a binding contract, there was an “obligation of good faith” that DOE had utterly failed to live up to. At Beach Channel HS, for example, the DOE agreed to send 11 ATR teachers , but two never showed up, and another was “illegally” asked to teach special needs students. At Columbus HS, twenty five classes in the fall did not have a single teacher, and the single ATR teacher they sent was only qualified to teach typing and stenography (!) which the school does not offer. At Jamaica HS, where they were supposed to provide a Teacher Center,  the principal received an email about this on June 10, only a few weeks ago, following nearly a full school year of non-action.

Third, as to the charter co-locations: DOE put boilerplate language into the Building Utilizations Plans, they were empty of content until the UFT/NAACP lawsuit was filed; they are still rewriting the BUPS and redoing all the hearings to try to repair the deficiencies, but they are still not adequate.

In any case, these BUPs are “ wholesale revisions,” and according to state law, any “significant” revision of a building plan requires a new six-month waiting period before the start of the next school year when the co-location can occur. It is now far too late in the year. Moerdler went through a litany of some of the unfair and inequitable co-locations that are still being contemplated, with children at the district schools losing equitable access to  bathrooms, libraries, gyms, etc. He argued that the “city of NY which has betrayed” these schools by their failed promises, and that the NYC DOE has one goal only: “the destruction of free public education in New York City.”

The city’s attorney, Chlarens Orsland, was up next. He said that the DOE was “working with State Education Department” to ensure they would get approval to close these 12 schools and that they expected a decision by July 31. The other seven schools (ironically those not on the state’s failing list) can be closed without the state’s approval. He denied that there was any agreement with set timelines to provide extra support to these schools; and cited an affidavit from former Chancellor Joel Klein, who disputed the UFT’s interpretation of this agreement.

( Klein’s affidavit says that the “agreement was never intended to be a mechanism to limit or forestall any of the DOE’s determinations as to the necessity of closing or co-locating schools. Rather, the portion of the letter agreement providing for the Education Plan was a mechanism to ensure that the 19 schools, which had a history of poor performance and student outcomes, received additional resources to enrich the students’ educational experience.”) 

READ MORE AT THE NYC PUBLIC SCHOOL PARENT BLOG

Yesterday's court hearings in the school closure/co-location lawsuit

newsclips on the hearings, see GothamSchools, Post, Times, NY1, WNYC.

Separated at Birth: Leo Casey, UFT - Steve Barr, Greendot Charter School Slug

Note: online learning will replace teachers. Another example of the UFT being a partner in crime.

Leonie Haimson wrote:

On Inside City Hall last night, Steve Barr was selling the expansion of his "Green dot" charters in NYC, where he said he will focus on online learning, bring his "model" inside DOE, and he bragged about how he's working closely w/ the UFT,  including Leo Casey and Michael Mulgrew. 

He says "parents are owners" but so far neither the DOE, Barr, nor apparently the UFT have told anyone what schools  in the Bronx he intends to "turn around."

"If you can find that mutual co-option {between union and charter school operators], we can get beyond 3% [of students at ] charters, the great works happening at of charters should be scaled up as quickly as possible, we don't have time to play these adult games."'

NY1.com: http://bit.ly/eAgKym

Union Role is Mediator, Not Advocate

Even Penn and Teller can't make an entire school building disappear from public into private hands in an instant. But watch the UFT and Green Dot make magic.

We've been saying this for years. That the UFT plays the role of mediator between the rank and file members and the people managing the school system. What the members need is a strong advocate, a role that is increasingly being played by people like Diane Ravitch and NYC parent activist Leonie Haimson of Class Size Matters and a new national group, Parents Across America (PAA).

I wrote a piece on Feb. 13 titled: Why Won't Mulgrew Defend LIFO?  I know the answer but don't want to scare you so early in this article.

Remember: 110 schools have been closed under the stewardship of the UFT leadership. Schools have become test prep factories (Ed Notes sponsored resolutions at DA's on the evils of standardized testing as far back as the late 90's were ignored). And charters are running rampant inside public schools but the UFT can't say a word because it has its own two charters running rampant inside two public schools. Where's the advocacy on the part of the UFT other than selective words at selective times? Show some results. The scary thing was yesterday's missive to send Governor Cuomo a "thank you" message. Lucky I ate a few hours before.

A new crop of young teachers who have come out of the woodwork recently and become active in groups like Grassroots Education Movement (GEM), NY Collective of Radical Educators (NYCORE) and Teachers Unite (TU). These voices have become important to counteract the message of the anti-union Bill Gates/DFER funded group Educators for Excellence (E4E which ICE's Jeff Kaufman renamed "ME4ME. I just call them ME$ME.) GEM's Julie Cavanagh debated a ME$ME on NY1 the same night Ravitch appeared on Jon Stewart's show. [Diane Ravitch and Julie Cavanagh Kick Butt].
A principal, Brian De Vale, did as good a job as could be done defending seniority face to face with Cathie Black at a District 14 CEC meeting last week. [Brooklyn Principal Challenges Cath...]

I was at the viewing party with Ravitch (Eadie Shanker was there too) sponsored by Leonie and PAA and we also watched Julie eloquently defend LIFO, seniority and tenure in a way that I haven't heard anyone from the UFT or AFT do. Julie tied her advocacy for her students (her school has been invaded by a charter controlled by a billionaire) to the protections she has from tenure. Ravitch was so so impressed she commented, "Julie, you were spectacular, also beautiful!"

Another thing we have been saying is that the UFT for years obfuscated - acting like Joel Klein was the bad guy and Bloomberg was the good guy. Funny how an article in The Observer claims that relations have deteriorated because Randi and Joel have left the room, while also talking about how Klein and Bloomberg played "bad cop, good cop." We maintained that the UFT was trying to fool the membership into believing this was about personalities, not a national attack on teachers, their unions and the entire public school system. EdNotes has been saying that since around 2001.

But I guess Mulgrew hasn't been reading Ed Notes. For in the Observer piece he says:

"I thought it was because of Joel Klein," Mr. Mulgrew said. "I honestly did. But that's not the case anymore. It's just [Mr. Bloomberg] there and it's become worse. ... He has a whole new team around him. ... Everything is carpet bomb and toxicity.

He has to be kidding. Randi fooled him too? We're in more to trouble than I thought. Then Mulgrew comes up with this goody:

"Since I know Deputy Mayor Wolfson's strategy is this when he runs a campaign, I'm assuming it's his influence on [the mayor]," said Mr. Mulgrew. Mr. Wolfson is of course the mayor's hard-driving senior adviser, who notably fought against Barack Obama's campaign long after Mr. Wolfson's candidate, Hillary Clinton, seemed to abandon the 2008 Democratic primary.

Mulgrew and the Observer declined to mention that Howard Wolfson was (and still may be for all we know) on the UFT payroll for years. (Just check the LM-2 reports of past years.)

And then we come to the NY Times piece today (New Strategy Weighed for Failing Schools) about the cozy relationship between the UFT and Green Dot charter maven/scoundrel Steve Barr who will partner together in shutting down a public school but making it look like something else. You see, you can believe in magic. Even Penn and Teller can't make an entire school building disappear from public into private hands in an instant. But watch the UFT and Green Dot make magic.

The plan would also involve forcing all teachers to reapply for their jobs and using a committee of teachers, school administrators and parents to pick who got to stay. The teachers’ contract would give them some measure of job protection, but it would be easier to fire them. The teachers also would work under more flexible rules, including longer hours in exchange for higher pay. “It’s about, what do we need to get this staff in order for them to meet the needs of the children and stop with this one-size-fits-all stuff?” said Michael Mulgrew...

Right Mike! One size fits all. If I were teaching in one of these schools,  I would be scared, very scared.

Let me tell you a few things about Steve Barr:

You know that the school in LA - Locke HS mentioned in the Times article?

Results on the standardized tests were lackluster, but the school gets high marks in other indicators of progress.The state test results released Tuesday for Locke High School weren't the sort of thing its new operator, Green Dot Public Schools, is accustomed to seeing: Not a single student scored as proficient in geometry, for example, and only a few percent tested at the next level down, basic.

How interesting what the Times leaves out. GEM/ICE's Lisa North commented:
BUT this is how NYC schools are closed...based on test scores....but I guess a charter school can be judged by "other" means.

Oakland teacher Jack Gerson wrote in Substance:

Two years ago, Steve Barr and his Green Dot charter schools group engineered a hostile takeover of Locke High School, a large public high school in Los Angeles. Despite the opposition of United Teachers of Los Angeles and the LA Unified School District, Barr was able to convince a bare majority of Locke's permanent faculty (37 of 73) to opt for Green Dot." Barr promptly dismissed the entire staff, forcing them to reapply for their jobs. Over 70 percent were not rehired.

And then there is this side of Barr: According to the Green Dot website, he is no longer on staff either.

Barr stepped aside this fall as board chairman of Green Dot but remains on the board and on staff. The expense problem had nothing to do with Barr's change of role, said Shane Martin, who replaced Barr as chairman.

Green Dot charter schools founder repays group $50,866
The nonprofit's tax return shows that Steve Barr repaid the organization after an internal review found that expenses he had charged were undocumented or unjustified.

Lie down with privatization dogs and you get fleeced. Can't wait to hear the spin at the DA today.
----------------
Check out Norms Notes for a variety of articles of interest: http://normsnotes2.blogspot.com/. And make sure to check out the side panel on right for news bits.

Gates, et al Funding Union Insurgency in UFT? ME4ME Workshop Today to Focus on School Organizing

NOTE: Must Read: Jeff Kaufman's take down of  E4E lies, distortions and outright manipulation and dishonesty at the ICE blog (and reproduced below the fold). Jeff, who works in a school full of them, termed them ME4ME - which I am changing to the more appropriate ME$ME. 

If you have an ME$ME person in your school, copy and print Jeff's statement for them because most of them know not what they do. OF course, instead of exposing them like Jeff does, Mulgrew chooses to meet with them.

Insiders in the UFT are buzzing about the upcoming challenge being presented by E4E - Educators for Excellence. This will be the first time in history that Unity will face an opponent fueled by billionaires who will pay for a high end ad and PR campaign and other goodies - there are already 4 organizers, with more to come. (They seem to be doing something similar in Los Angeles.)

As we reported (Don't Miss Educators4Excellence Party - Thurs, Feb. 24 at "The American Conference Center," 177 Prince St. on the 2nd floor), today ME4ME is holding an organizing training workshop that they are billing as:

Come join E4E to learn how to become a better advocate for kids.  E4E is hosting a two hour grassroots training event to help give you the advocacy tools you need to maximize your impact for kids.

Of course this has nothing to do with kids but is all about the adults who are funded by Gates and DFER. What they are advocating for "kids' is an end to LIFO, which will keep the adult ME$ME members in a job.

Our sources are telling us today's grassroots training is about chapter organizing with a plan to prepare for chapter leader positions in the spring 2012 elections in preparation for a challenge to Unity in 2013. The platform will be a very simple one issue campaign: getting rid of LIFO.

Now keeping LIFO alive as a hot issue is dependent on layoffs or the threat of layoffs. With Bloomberg's threat this year, ME$ME is out of synch in terms of election seasons. In my conspiracy tinged world, if Bloomberg doesn't get LIFO ended by this summer, the layoff threat will disappear until next year.

And when a ME$ME member runs for chapter leader, expect the word from the DOE to go out to the principals to grease the skids for them. Of course as a one issue group they will not be interested in protecting the rights of the members in their schools and will be suck-ups to the principals.

So how could they win a chapter leader position? Easy. Many principals run their own candidates who get elected because the chapter is afraid to elect a person who will stand up (believe me, I went through this in my school where the principal had a core of 5th columnists nipping at me for being an aggressive CL.) But in this case, they will have protection from the very top of the DOE.

And watch when they run in 2013 - bet their literature gets some "help" getting into most of the schools. Unity will no longer have a lock on the mail boxes. If ME4ME wasn't such a slime ball operation, it might bring a smile to my face.

ME$ME will attack Unity on their vulnerability when it comes to democracy, even using some of the points made by the opposition for years. Unity will use this as an opportunity to vilify other opposition groups if they run on a platform criticizing Unity as helping ME4ME. Except for New Action, of course. They have no purpose other than to be a stalking horse for Unity in exchange for 8 Executive Board seats. The issue will be whether Unity thinks it is an advantage for them to have New Action on the ballot.

What of the other opposition groups - ICE and TJC? They will be placed in an interesting position. With a lack of resources they would have to in essence battle ME$ME and Unity (and New Action). Is it worth it in an election they cannot win or even make much headway? It will be interesting to see where this goes.

What about a new group like GEM? I know that Unity sees GEM as a possible opposition group but so far GEM has focused on the bigger issues of fighting the ed deformers in the battle to save public education - one of the mantras of GEMers is that they have to do it since the UFT is not. But is that a platform for an election? My guess is that at this point GEM is sticking to the ed deform struggle. Another point is that GEM has been working with parents groups and some of those alliances do not always dovetail with an inside UFT strategy.

Since GEM has been organizing young teachers who are of the same constituency as ME$ME, GEM might take on the battle with them since they squarely fit into the ed deform category.

One thing is sure, ed notes will be there to report on these fascinating developments.

Add On
Accountable Talk has done some great work on ME$ME:  An Asshat By Any Other Name


Jeff Kaufman made some important comments on that post in defending his school:

I agree that the e4e (me4me) crowd are self-absorbed anti-union types but the name calling and divisiveness must end. What turns a me4me into a all4all are experiences where they must call upon their colleagues, Chapter Leaders or Union for help. Our "f" rated school was not based on teaching...it was based on graduation rates in a second chance high school. Costa will learn that the DOE in concocting this measure did nothing but assure that our school will close despite our teaching. The struggle must be against all misdirected and irrelevant measures included me4me's "taking ability into account for layoff purposes."

Here is his ICE Post, which by the way is another link missed by Gotham Schools (What Makes Gotham Schools (and What Does Not). Gotham posts a link when Evan or Sidney fart.

“White Paper” on a Roll: How Ed Deformers Distort the Record on Seniority Layoffs

by Jeff Kaufman

On February 14, 2011 Educators 4 Excellence, a mouthpiece for the current movement attempting to reverse the current law on seniority based layoffs issued a press release announcing what they termed a "first research-based proposal" contained in a "white paper" entitled, "Keeping Our Best Teachers: An Alternative to Seniority-Based Layoffs."

As our Union remains conspicuously silent on this issue, preferring to argue against the need for layoffs rather than the method, it is time to take this piece of alleged research apart to see what supports their recommendations and whether these recommendations truly support their main thesis; that seniority-based layoffs hurt students and cause some of the "best teachers" to be terminated.

MORE


The format of the "white paper" is fairly straight-forward containing an introduction, an explanation of the current system and recommendations.

The Law

The law on seniority-based layoffs requires all layoff decisions to be based on total seniority including substitute and paraprofessional service within license. The literature dealing with layoff scenarios misses this point. Not surprisingly so does the "white paper"." When a layoff decision is made the DOE can layoff certain licensed teachers and hold back on other licenses. Thus hard to staff licenses like special ed or ESL might be totally spared layoff or high school teachers might be laid off before junior high or elementary school teachers. Education Law Section 2588 already gives the DOE the discretion to choose which license and how many teachers to lay off.

The impact of this discretion is nowhere assessed or even discussed. Yet the "white paper" concludes in its introduction that the impact of a layoff would be greatest felt in schools with a large percentage of newly hired teachers which they conclude are more often concentrated in the lowest income communities.

The "white paper's" Introduction

In order to save our schools from being torn apart (their words, not mine) the E4E deformers recommend that layoffs be based on Chronic Teacher Absentees, Principal Evaluations and being assigned to the Absent Teacher Reserve Pool.

"These categories are clear indicators of teacher performance and student achievement," the paper claims. Yet the next paragraph cautions, "In the absence of a more comprehensive system, our framework is a better way to conduct layoffs because it protects great teachers."

This tautological expression undergirds the thesis of the paper. We can't really know who the best teachers are but somehow by laying off by measuring teacher absence, principal evaluations and the fact that you are an ATR will avoid terminating "great teachers."

The introduction continues by asserting that based on a study done last year by the Calder Urban Institute demonstrates that "most of the teachers who would be laid off in a seniority-based system would be substantially more effective than even the best teacher laid off using a value-added system, or a system that includes teacher effectiveness." Does this mean that value-added systems don't measure teacher effectiveness?

Despite the inartful wording of the "white paper's" introduction the Calder Urban Institute (a collaboration of mostly southern university ed researchers who defend Waiting for Superman and most of the ed deformer agenda) claims, as the E4E paper does that seniority-based layoffs will cause effective teachers to be laid off. But how did they determine effectiveness?

The Calder study used 4^th and 5^th graders from New York City and the "value-added" model that has been demonstrated to be inaccurate and misleading to determine teacher effectiveness. A bit more academically responsible than the E4E crowd Calder states its assumption right up front, "assuming readily available measures of teacher effectiveness actually measure true teacher effectiveness, an assumption to which we return below, the differences between seniority and effectiveness based layoffs are larger and more persistent than we anticipated."

The distortions and inaccuracies continue as the "white paper" claims that the diversity of the teacher ranks would be adversely affected by seniority-based layoffs. The paper claims, without support, that "over the last decade, New York has hired many more African-American and Latino teachers to better reflect the population of city students." Seniority-based layoffs will, they claim, cause these newer, minority teachers to be laid off disproportionally. The fact is that minority hiring has dwindled in New York City and other areas served by programs such as Teach for America. No analysis is offered to support this proposition.

What is cited is the recent Los Angeles school system case as evidence of adverse racial impact. Again inaccurate and misleading. The case has been settled in which racial impact, by law, is permissible to be taken into account in protecting certain parts of the school district from layoff. The settlement is a creature of a completely incomparable set of circumstances. The types of abuses cited by the plaintiffs have not been documented in New York City.

The Recommendations

The first recommendation is based on teacher attendance. The "white paper" suggests that absent teachers be divided into 3 tiers in which teachers absent 15 percent or higher (as measured over the previous and current school year) would be in the first round of layoffs. Tier 2 would be at 10 percent and Tier 3 at 8 percent. They exclude absences with doctor's notes and calculate that at Tier 1 for the last 15 months year you would have to absent 41 days to meet the threshold. At an average of 3 days per month it is unimaginable that a teacher, without a doctor's note, would not have been brought up on charges, placed on disciplinary probation under our new time and attendance contract provisions or otherwise separated from employment.

The "white paper" again confuses teacher effectiveness and student affect by citing a New Teacher Project paper that supports their thesis. (The New Teacher Project was founded by ed deformer poster child Michelle Rhee who recently was caught in her own teacher effectiveness misrepresentation when she admitted that her resume could have been written clearer when it suggested she magically caused her own students to increase their test performance from the 13^th percentile to the 90^th percentile).

The study cited as well as this "white paper" mysteriously neglect to mention a New York City Department of Education study, written just prior to Bloom/Klein in which absenteeism did not correlate with student performance. Other studies have demonstrated that there are more effective ways of dealing with teacher absenteeism including disincentives (termination, fine and other discipline) and incentives (buying back unused sick time).

The next recommendation involves using U ratings in layoff decisions. They support this proposed layoff criteria on the broken U rating system claiming that only 2% of the teachers get U ratings. While 2% is still 1600 there is reason to believe that this number is understated. However sine UFT and DOE statistics don't include terminated employees (both tenured and probationer) and teachers who voluntary resigned with U ratings the number is probably much greater.

The broken U rating system, however, in impeccable logic, supports the decision to layoff because, according to the "white paper," when principals give U ratings they must really mean it since they give it so infrequently. Then they take the next illogical step; if they really mean it then the teachers must really be bad. This is absurd and the very reason that seniority-based layoffs were codified into law.

U ratings are given for a variety of reasons many of which do not involve teacher quality. Political, economic, personality differences and age discrimination reasons are just a few.

U ratings rarely lead to teacher termination for tenured teachers due to the subjective nature of the teacher assessment by the principal and the incompetence of DOE administrators and attorneys. Just like students poor teachers can be taught and with the right mentoring an incompetent teacher can be taught to be competent. A U rating has nothing to do with teacher competence. Seniority based layoffs ensure that illegal and inappropriate discriminatory practices are not perpetrated in a layoff situation.

The last recommendation and my personal favorite is the layoff of ATRs who have not found a permanent job in 6 months. The chauvinism and condescension toward ATRs is evidence of the "white paper's" true mission; the destruction of the collective bargaining system as we know it.

While the ICE/TJC members of the Executive Board when the 2005 contract came up for a vote were the only ones to vote against the contract on the Board and tried to warn the membership of the dangers of this provision (just skim this blog's early entries) the fact is the membership approved of the contract after listening to the lies of union officials who promises this would do away with bumping and the open market was a much fairer way than seniority in determining teacher placement.

In the aftermath of the creation of the ATR pool we have seen overt age discrimination in the attempt to cause more experienced teachers to quit or retire. ATRs fill full teacher programs and are not hired due to the heavier financial burden they place on shrunken school budgets.

When a contract creates an economic disincentive to hire a teacher it is outrageous to insinuate that the teacher's failure to obtain a permanent position is due to incompetence. As schools close ATRs are created. While there was an agreement at one point that recognized the economic disincentive to hire experienced teachers this agreement was never fully funded and totally expired last December.

Additionally the ATR system was established as a result of collective bargaining, where teachers and the DOE traded economic and non-economic demands. What did we give up for the ATR system? Should we permit the DOE to circumvent the collective bargaining process by an end run through the legislature?
And who says ATRs are incompetent?

The "white paper" is replete with inaccuracies and misstatements. It is sad that a group of teachers, who they themselves might, in the future, be U rated, excessed or be absent buy into the ed deformer argument that old is bad, young is good.

Why Won't Mulgrew Defend LIFO?

I just want to open with a cat report since our Unity/union official friend seems so anxious to get an update: no doody, no vomit. Now you can relax for the day.

I just watched Mulgrew on Diana Williams on ABC and wasn't surprised he wouldn't defend LIFO. He didn't at the DA last Wednesday and he didn't went he went to speak to E4E (I have to comment later on the E4E correct point about retirees voting in UFT elections). Instead he shifts the debate to not having layoffs at all or talks about class size. Not a bad strategy but ducking the LIFO issue when he has a platform to make a rational case does everyone a disservice. Why not bring up the Peter Lamphere case in a vast public forum? Does the fact that Peter is a long-time member of the opposition have anything to do with it? At the very least he should bring up Iris Blige.

Arthur Goldstein did a piece on LIFO at HufPo: merits of LIFO  and Peter did his own piece at Gotham: “Merit”? My Experience With Arbitrary U Ratings

Making the connection between political use of U ratings and LIFO should be at the top of Mulgrew's agenda. But it isn't and that avoidence is what puts him on the Randi Weingarten camp (see part 2 of our GEM TFA blogger's reactions to Randi's appearance yesterday for a sample of Randi doublespeak -Live Blogging from Teach for America 20th Anniversary Summit, Part 2 - Randi Weingarten).

I know people think Mulgrew is different - and later I may do a piece on my reaction to him at the DA where I also saw some differences - but more in style than substance.

Mulgrew also missed a chance to explain and defend the ATRs - which he did at the DA to the members - but doesn't really do when he talks to the public - I mean give the full case with facts and figures how these people are often covering real programs.

I left this comment at Gotham, a comment that is waiting moderation, so I'll reprint it here:

Is a democratic system of government always fair? There are all sorts if distortions. But can anyone point to an alternative. The same with LIFO. Not always fair to all but in fact is the only system that works over the long term. It is a system put in place well over a hundred years ago way before there were teacher unions  because of the corruption and patronage that went on.

Why would that change now? Just read Peter Lamphere's story in the Community section - he would be out of a job if LIFO ends. Then there's Iris Blige. But we can talk about hundreds of principals who would not make a fair and rational judgement.

Other principals I know absolutely support LIFO in spite of what it costs them.

By that I mean the fair funding formula which was designed to force principals to get rid of the highest paid teachers. I have a simple way to eliminate that as a factor - go back the old system of not charging a school for the costs of teacher salaries. There can be no LIFO modifications until that ends. But you will never see that happen because that is the very reason for the Fair funding formula in the first place and it reveals the entire intention behind the move to end LIFO.

I was at a school the other day as a speaker and a 4th year teacher told me she supported the idea of LIFO but also doesn't think it fair for her to lose her job while she can point to people in the school who don't pull their weight. A fair point.

But let's drill a bit. First, she has no guarantee that the principal sees it the way she does. I had a principal who favored people who sucked up to her - to her that was pulling the weight.

Secondly, as a 4th year teacher she already had a buffer over teachers with less seniority than she has. If she is laid off LIFO seniority rules should protect her when people are called back - though I don't know how this would work in reality. In 1975 when there were massive layoffs, most people were called back within a year or two - and in the order in which they were laid off and at the salary that were making.  Teaching at that point became a tough job to get.

In fact, you will never find everyone working to the same capacity in any job - I know young lawyers at big firms who chafe over the seniority that goes on - there are forms of LIFO in almost every profession. My wife was at a hospital and even among doctors, the longer you are there the more perks you get. There are also all sorts of politics that keep certain people around while more competent people can't get ahead. What do you think goes on the police dept - and these guys have guns - no one seems upset that a young cop might be cut to keep a vet who may not have the ability to chase someone down in the street anymore. To make teachers the focal point is just part of the general assault on public education - to ruin teaching as  career and replace them with a cheap, transient force. As Ravitch points out, there are 4 million teachers in this nation - do they think they can work on the Peace Corps idea? 

Has the uft has made any of these points amongst all the other defense of lifo arguments so many bloggers are making?

Leo Casey: If you like to sing and dance, and would be interested in some flash mob actions around the closing schools, let me know

Last Update: Tuesday, Jan. 11, 2011, 9am

How much fun is this email from Leo Casey - the UFT is so devoid of ideas they are stealing from GEM, which has been flashmobbing and singing at PEP meetings and at the Waiting for Superman premiere. Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic. I'm greasing my voice and practicing my dance steps.

The UFT is worried (for good reason) that if they try to get teachers out to PEPs, they will discover that "real reformers" are doing THEIR job! I think it is a good bet to say they have been embarrassed to act!

See below the fold for more. Note how Leo urges the high school committee meeting to go to the PEP - but the UFT is in not organiizng the kind of massive response they did at last January's historic 8 hour PEP meeting.

From: "Leo Casey" <lcasey@uft.org>

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:01:42 -0500

To: #UFT High School Staff<#UFTHighSchoolStaff@uft.org>; Robert Zuckerberg<rzuckerberg@uft.org>; Mary Wade<MWade@uft.org>; Ira Munet<IMunet@uft.org>; Richard Mantell<RMantell@uft.org>; Thomas Bennett<TBennett@uft.org>; Alfred Gonzales<AGonzales@uft.org>; Servia Silva<ssilva@uft.org>; Michael McCourt<MMccourt@uft.org>; Dwayne Clark<dclark@uft.org>; Donna Manganello<dmanganello@uft.org>; Mayra Cruz<MCruz@uft.org>; Pat Filomena<pfilomena@uft.org>; Carmen Z. Quinones<cquinones@uft.org>; Carol Harrison<CHarrison@uft.org>; Steven Goldberg<SGoldberg@uft.org>; Alice Cooper-Jackson<AJackson@uft.org>; Maritza Perez<MPerez@uft.org>; Rick King<RKing@uft.org>

Subject: JANUARY DELEGATE ASSEMBLY AND HIGH SCHOOL COMMITTEE MEETING

As it now stands, the January Delegate Assembly has been moved to this Wednesday, January 12^th. As I am sure you are all aware, there are weather forecasts of a serious snowstorm starting Tuesday evening which may preempt that meeting. We will make a decision on the Delegate Assembly tomorrow (Tuesday), and send it out via e-mail and robo-calls.

The original date of the January High School Committee was this coming Wednesday. Before we heard of the possible snowstorm, we had moved the High School Committee meeting to Wednesday January 19^th to accommodate the new Delegate Assembly date. January 19^th is the date of a Panel for Educational Policy meeting which will begin a series of meetings on school closing with consideration of school co-locations, and our plan was to have the High School Committee meeting at the Brooklyn UFT and then go over to the PEP meeting at Brooklyn Tech. Should the Delegate Assembly be held this Wednesday, we will continue with these plans and hold the meeting on the 19^th. If, however, the Delegate Assembly is postponed until January 19^th, we will just cancel the January High School Committee meeting. As soon as we know how this will all play out, I will be back in touch with you. But if you can possibly do so, please make plans to attend the January 19^th PEP meeting.

If you like to sing and dance, and would be interested in some flash mob actions around the closing schools, please let me know by responding to this email.

Leo Casey

Vice President, Academic High Schools

United  Federation  of  Teachers

52  Broadway,  14th  Floor

New  York,  New  York

10004

212-598-6869

UFT Structure

Someone asked me to send this for a workshop on the UFT. A little crowded but has most of the info embedded. Groups like NYCORE and Teachers Unite have been reaching out to the newer crop of teachers and are offering them insights into the union since so many arrive with a negative attitude towards the union. Now, if you only make a judgement based on the actions of the leadership you night not blame them. But the union structure, in the hands of a democratic oriented leadership with a progressive agenda could be a massive force in opposing ed deform. From what I've been hearing, the interest level has been rising. If I goofed anywhere let me know. Click (and weep! )

Some Parents (and a few teachers) Debate UFT - Do They "Get" What NYC Teachers Don't?

"This is what teachers pay the UFT good money in union dues for.  Given the size of the opposition to the UFT's current leadership, it would appear that they find this situation satisfactory.  The UFT has been complicit from Day One in terms of everything Bloomberg/Klein have pulled off to date and as the teachers' collective bargaining agent, remains fully culpable."
- Dee Alpert, A parent on the NYCEdNews listserve

A few weeks ago a parent leader approached me and asked almost pleadingly, "Norm, why can't you come up with a candidate in the UFT that would actually represent the interests of teachers?" The parent was disgusted at the UFT's inadequate response to the Cathie Black appointment, amongst other issues. "I meet so many teachers who are unhappy at the UFT," he said. "Where are they," I asked? "It does them no good to gripe. They need to get active in the UFT and with organized groups to make a difference." He had no answer. And neither do I.

I won't get into my attempt to explain the Unity Caucus machine in 30 seconds.

Here are excerpts from a debate that took place on the UFT within a mostly parent listserve.

The debate began over a CEC 6 (upper Manhattan) reso (see below the fold) supporting the ed deformers and calling an end to LIFO (last in first out) if the expected layoffs come, an effective end to tenure. Legendary master teacher Deb Meier - who goes one on one with Diane Ravitch on their Building Bridges blog - is someone whose career I have admired and followed since my early years of teaching. The lead in quote was in response to this comment from Deb.

Fired tenured teachers can, but if there is no "tenure".  no grounds for dismissal required etc....then what?  In fact, it's wisest for principals to say very little if they don't want to keep an untenured teacher, to avoid any possibility of appeal on the basis of race, gender, union activity etc.    Tenure requires that there must be a fair process for dismissal.  The teachers in the so-called "rubber room" were there because while a principal can remove a teacher from the classroom arbitrarily, they must bring charges then  to kick in an appeals process.  The union provides a lawyer--so-to speak--to represent them in such a hearing/trial.   Generally there is an equally arbitrary deadline for such charges to be made, and the defendant then has x number of days to respond, etc.  But if no charge are ever made, and no evidence ever collected?   Then perhaps "they" hope the defendant will resign, disappear, etc.  The primary basis for being able to remove a teacher (or, incidentally any school employee including a principal) before charges and evidence are presented is given an accusation, claim, complaint that their continued presence in a class would endanger children or the school.  Is there a better way?  Of course, and the union might be to blame for the fact that it has allowed such an indefensible process to continue year after year.  The union has been insufficiently careful in guarding the human rights of its member, not too zealous!

Having had friends and colleagues who have been victims of this system and, as a result, so have their students and their families, I hope that better means are found.   Fortunately some have had sufficient clout to get heard and whose appeals have reversed charges that were frivolous or invented by an angry colleague, student, parent, or principal.  Unfortunately some have had their lives and services destroyed without any evidence of having done anything wrong.

Deb

Well said, Dee; I couldn't agree more.

At this point, I find it extremely difficult to muster any sympathy (and even less respect) for the UFT's past and current leadership.

As a teacher, I was never much of a union person, but I respected their (idealized) role in the overall city/school relationship. Now I find myself only feeling actively pro-union when a situation appears harmful to the children and their educations, but not for the sake of the union itself. Whatever they suffer now, they have no business complaining. They made their own bed; now they can lay in it. I do feel sorry for the teachers and other members who have fought unsuccessfully against the Weingarten/Mulgrew regimes, though.

Steve Koss

________
How can 80,000 teachers just go along with bad policy?

How can so many paid professionals just allow their principals and union to profit from these reforms that harm kids, communities and ultimately the teaching profession?

Is it because, like parents, teachers are generally overburdened with work/family/economic strain and can only afford to fight the fight when it is personal, and pragmatic to fight back-- attacks on their school, their ratings, their jobs, their kids, etc?

How many teachers are engaged in NYCORE/GEM/CPE/Teachers Unite/ and other organizing efforts?

Where are the tens of thousands of teachers who fight these battles every day in their classrooms and schools?

Without an organized push back from labor how can we hope that sanity and good pedagogy will prevail?

Lisa Donlan
____

Lisa is right. I am not one to go hard at Mulgrew and the uft, but in this case I believe it is important. Lisa asks, "how can 80000 teachers go along w bad policy." The answer is our union lies to them, misleads them, and does not fully educate them. Our union right now should be educating, organizing and mobilizing, but instead they hold half-hearted, unpublicized rallies for school closures for which they have no cohesive message except that they will hold the DOE to the legal process. NYCORE, GEM, and other groups do not have the reach into schools that the uft has- it is immoral that Mulgrew and the uft are not doing more; they should be offering a vision and a clear message that our schools and our children are not for sale, that we should be fixing schools- not closing them, and that teacher rights, good working conditions, and teacher voice help and benefit our children. Sadly, we are left to fight on our own. Hopefully some of you can join us at cuny tomorrow @ 5 for an ad hoc committee meeting to plan the fight backs that must happen in the coming months... In the absence of true leadership from the uft, educators and parents must stand up, on our own, and hope that Mulgrew et al will follow.

Julie Cavanagh (teacher)
_______
When we spend less time attacking our imperfect potential allies we might find more--but we see to find satisfaction in "I was proved right",, rather than thinking about how else they might respond? Are you for a strike? Let's discuss the details not just pound away at the enemies of our enemies.

But that doesn't mean that I don't find the activism of the folks on this list-serve courageous and important, but I also suspect we are not always representative of those we "represent".... Political education is not so different than school education---people learn best when they feel comfortable exposing their ideas, don[t feel put in a corner as the "enemy" quickly, and are assumed to be well-meaning eve f mistaken. This may sound preachy and I often break my own rules! But let's try.

Deb
_______

The UFT has been something other than an "imperfect ally" in the class size and testing issue in NYC (and NYS). It has been complicit from Day One with the folks making these decisions to start with. I would ROTFL if someone told me that the UFT only realized this year that there was something wrong with NYSED's tests and be most surprised to find documentation regarding its exposure of this pervasive scam prior to this year.

In the women's movement in the '70's, before it allowed itself to become co-opted, the principle "only join one-issue, short-term coalitions" ruled. This was extremely effective ... but nobody made the mistake of assuming that any group with which we coalesced on a single issue was actually our friend. That's self-delusion.

Dee Alpert

__________
Dee: I agree w/ Debbie that this shrill one note, repeated criticisms are not helpful, especially when they are not accompanied by any information or facts.

The UFT is far from perfect, but the current leadership has been dealt an extremely bad hand and has been critical in terms of launching lawsuits against the DOE on class size, school closings and a bunch of other issues, when the city refuses to obey the law.

Leonie Haimson

________
Can we say the UFT was dealt a bad hand when they were asked to cut the deck before the cards were dealt, accepted the offer and stepped on everyone in the union who tried to object?

Norm
_______

I don't think it's helpful to maintain illusions about who one is dealing with and why they're there. UFT pretty much does what other unions do. Sometimes that's good for kids, sometimes it's not. Unions, typically, do what's going to make their more senior members happy and will let those with least seniority be laid off ... the latter being the folks who vote less often in union elections. But in terms of its members, one can't begin to count the individual cases in which teachers have been screwed by their school administration and their building UFT leaders have done squat about it. I've just met too many of them. There's the neighbor upstairs. And the other neighbor further upstairs. And ... I'm certainly not confining my views re UFT to the "current leadership."

For how many years did the UFT fail to push class size grievances fully, aggressively and completely ... all the way up? If the UFT had wanted to enforce that part of its contract vigorously, it could have. Didn't. And while Bloomberg's announced massive teacher layoffs, when has the UFT publicly done a snit about the NYCDOE hiring all these sub-qualified IT people and other "staff" (rather than "line") ultimately non-productive but well paid staff, vastly increasing administrative overhead ... and leaving so many line teachers vulnerable to being pushed out the schoolhouse door?

Dee
_______

A slavish adherence to “process” just gets you to a bad result more slowly.

The law is bad and it is difficult to believe the UFT just couldn't have foreseen the consequences when they acquiesced to this version of mayoral control. All you have to do is read the law without rose-colored glasses.

PdK
_________

Here is the original post from Leonie that initiated the discussion:

Sad to see this document/resolution come from the place where CFE started.  In all the rhetoric about the need for “great teachers” and incentive pay, there is no mention of the problems of overcrowding and  class size – the focus of the CFE case and still a huge problem in D6 and citywide.

I looked up where they got the info  that “about that 1 in 2500 tenured teachers lose their jobs because of performance compared to 1 in 57 doctors and 1 in 97 lawyers;”   

It turns out that this claim, repeated in Waiting for Superman, refers specifically to the state of Illinois,  and was contained in a 2005 series called “The Hidden Cost of Tenure” from the Small Newspaper Group in that state.

http://thehiddencostsoftenure.com/

http://hiddenviolations.com/stories/?prcss=display&id=358596

Not sure if it was even true in Illinois; the figures for doctors and lawyers sound very high to me.

Education “manifesto” alarms parents, teachers in Washington Heights and Inwood

http://www.manhattantimesnews.com/2010/education-manifesto-alarms-parents-teachers-in-washington-heights-and-inwood.html

Diane Ravitch responded:
The 1 in 2500 number is bogus in that it doesn't not account for the 50% of teachers who leave within five years of starting.

Caroline Grannan from SF
The other response about the teachers who "lose their jobs" is that this doesn't count the many teachers who CHOOSE to leave their jobs. Many teachers choose to leave their jobs for other reasons, but some choose to leave them because they know they're not coping well and have chosen the wrong field (a teacher friend of mine described this happening at her school -- midlife career-changing new teacher turned out to be a disaster, finished out two years and left the field voluntarily); some after some kind of coaching/counseling process, etc. That statistic is for teachers who do not leave for any of those reasons and are actively fired, which would likely be a fairly small percentage of the less successful teachers who leave the field due to being less successful teachers.

Deb Meier
What does it mean that a lawyer "loses his job"???  Or a doctor?

Didn't find much current info on the Health Department web site.  It appears that 200-300 physicians licenses are either suspended, revoked, or surrendered every rear.

I submitted a FOIL request for the actual current numbers, and the total number of licensed physicians.

Eugene Falik

 

I suspect also that doctors and lawyers resort to appeals processes!

Deb

Unity Caucus Insights/How Unity Caucus Prepares for Delegate Assemblies

Updated: Sat, Dec. 11, 8AM
Here are some interesting insights by 2 former Unity Caucus members. Signs of cracks in the machine? I'm not betting on that yet.

The Unity Leadership put out a message regarding school closings that says we are watching closely. We will go to court. We will help schools that want help. Holy Crud. Of course that is all you can do . You don't have a clear and concise blueprint of how our schools should operate. You supported and helped shape Mayoral Control and now are invested in making sure the law is followed. They can close down every school, pump up the ATR pool until it reaches heaven and create an untenable situation down the road where you will have to sell out the ATRS, and you sit with your hands tied because you are following the very law you helped to create. Great job. 
 --- Posted on ICE mail by John Powers, a former Unity Caucus member

Hi,
Just catching up on my email and I read the piece about the two Michael's*.  Do you know about the Speaker's Bureau?  They hold a meeting usually the day before the DA to go over questions for the President and any resolutions.  The president has a map of where people will sit to call on.  They do it for everything.  They used to meet at a junior high on 21st or the china chalet but last year they were starting to have conference calls. - Another former Unity Caucus member

*A Tale of Two Michaels: UFT and Mayor Bloomberg - Who is more undemocratic?

was written by Seung Ok - We are waging a two front battle against major powers - the millions of our own union leadership and the billionaire mayor.  


_____________

Below is the full piece by Brooklyn Chapter Leader John Powers, a former member of Unity Caucus. Powers joined Unity in the summer of 2009 with the intention of trying to create debate on crucial issues within the caucus but when the union supported teacher evaluation measures he withdrew as a delegate to the AFT convention in Seattle (I'm sorry he did as we could have used some more people on the inside - who secretly were slipping me info) in June 2010, effectively ending his association with Unity.

The number one concern that the Unity leadership has is not Cathie Black (and the ATR, seniority situation), but Andrew Cuomo and his desire to hold a NY State Constitutional Convention. The language in our NYS Constitution protects city/state pensions from being changed or "diminished" in any way.

This is the great sleeping giant that will activate workers across the state. What is Unity's plan? Labor's plan? Will they lack the courage and leadership to mount a fight against this great austerity measure? Do they have the imagination, creativity and talent to create a united front that puts forth a clear and concise message that will resonate with citizens across the state? Will they engage in the necessary planning and training of its members to mobilize in ways that might "paralyze" the state? Or will they rely strictly on massaging politicians who may ultimately turn their backs on us. Abandon us? 

I am so worried about how Labor will respond, especially Unity. Our leadership has failed over the last fifteen years I have been teaching to put forth a serious educational worker campaign with a clear message that states what we stand for and what we believe K-12 education should encompass in all of its complexities. The Unity leadership is all over the place constantly defending itself from attacks, making compromises and appeasing individuals, agencies and organizations who hold our work in little regard and seek to pulverize us. 

Remember that absurd cartoon commercial last year about high stakes tests and ed jargon. Wow. That really hit it out of the park. One million bucks on a cartoon that apparently "tested well" with some audiences. What about us? The DOE runs multi-colored propaganda ads on subway cars and shoots "missiles" at us daily via corporate controlled newspapers and magazines. And what does the Unity leadership do: creates a "fluffy" one million dollar cartoon. Who signed off on that one? 

We are such a talented, dynamic force of 80,000 teachers. So many untapped resources and the Unity leadership still operates under a perverted form of "democratic centralism" that insulates them from engaging in dialogs and debates with their own party members as well as the masses of rank and filers who could help them. Their hubris and lack of imagination and openness is a threat to the long-term viability of the UFT as a union.

One way the leadership seeks to divide and conquer their party members and other rank and filers is through "red fear." They paint dissenters or critics as being extreme leftists whose ideas will destroy the union. Here is where it gets tricky. Even if one were to agree that some dissenters / critics appear to hold more "extreme" views than others (funny aren't the ed deformers the real extremists?), this practice makes Unity members docile and hostile to even entertaining relatively traditional modes of unionism that includes various types of mobilizations. 

For instance, we have principals and schools that operate under a climate of fear and intimidation. Why doesn't the Unity leadership help these schools hold small demos that focus on embarrassing the principal and educating the parents of school children who attend? You don't need lawyers and courts for this type of action. You don't even need large numbers of people. Hell, bring in the retirees. Have them stand hand in hand with teachers at affected schools, especially the younger teachers (BTW: Wait until the retirees figure out what's going on with Cuomo and our pensions. The pension "language" I referred to before would not only affect present employees but all retirees too. Are there any retirees out there who are reading this? Create a flier regarding our pensions and Cuomo and pay a visit to the next UFT Retiree Chapter meeting. I'd go but I believe they are held during work hours. Now there is a target group. Boy oh boy, our retirees are an untapped resource. Who is reaching out to them? Who is asking them to come speak at meetings, especially meetings with young teachers. Any CLs out there? Bring a retiree in to talk to young teachers about the importance of unionism, benefits, pensions, seniority, and providing for your family. Ask retirees to canvas schools who need our support. Have them distribute literature that explains the state of our union. Our pensions. ATR's. Seniority. Collect signatures. Put email addresses of names collected on ice-mail and other list serves (with their permission).

Heck, hit the colleges too. Hit all the CUNY ed departments. Private universities. We need the newbies and the newbies need us.   

There is so much to be upset about regarding the "deformers" and the Unity leadership, but I'm hopeful that we are reaching a point where we will have to be heard.

And Unity Leadership: Stop Trying to Dumb Us Down. Stop Trying to Divide and Conquer UFTers. Get a Plan. Create a Strong Positive Message and Get It Out There.

Little Surprise: The Unity Leadership today put out a message regarding school closings that says we are watching closely. We will go to court. We will help schools that want help. Holy Crud. Of course that is all you can do . You don't have a clear and concise blueprint of how our schools should operate. You supported and helped shape Mayoral Control and now are invested in making sure the law is followed. They can close down every school, pump up the ATR pool until it reaches heaven and create an untenable situation down the road where you will have to sell out the ATRS, and you sit with your hands tied because you are following the very law you helped to create. Great job. 

That's one heck of a job. 

In Solidarity,

John Powers

P.S. Has anyone seen the potential new NYS performance standards for students? After reading them, you will probably need a toilet quickly. If I can get an electronic copy I will send it out. It represents the final nail in the coffin of absolute and total regimentation of teaching and learning. It is spreadsheet fascism at its worst. But more importantly, look for the Unity leadership to highlight these performance standards and talk about how disgusting they are while focusing almost exclusively on how our work day does not permit time to do the activities indicated in the performance standards. Although this is true, it is also true that this will leave the door open for a compromise/appeasement agreement where the Unity leadership will approve some or all of the inanities as long as we are compensated for it and given time to do it. What they should do is???????? You guessed it, advocate for what real teaching and learning encompasses. Wait until you read this draft of performance standards.

-----

Check out Norms Notes for a variety of articles of interest: http://normsnotes2.blogspot.com/
Here is an article related to the NEA and AFT cooperation in the onslaught on teachers:

Report: Many officials willing to replace half of staff to turn around schools

Schools in Trouble Starved While UFT Fiddles

Someone must ask the leadership of the UFT, with all its resources, why Leonie Haimson, a one woman wrecking crew when it comes to Tweed chicanery, has to be the one to put a report like the one below together that exposes how Beach Channel HS (the local school in my neighborhood) had rising class sizes while targeted by the DOE for closure. Remember how the UFT law suit kept BCHS open for an extra year but then the UFT made a deal with the DOE that allowed them to insert a new school in the building in an effort to starve the incoming freshman class - with the other high school (Far Rockaway) having been closed already the kids who aren't accepted to any Rockaway schools must head to places like John Adams in Ozone Park, the next target in the domino chain.

So Seung Ok is right on when he says in this piece we posted A Tale of Two Michaels: UFT and Mayor Bloomberg - Who is more undemocratic?:

No wonder teachers are losing the battle for public opinion. We are waging a two front battle against major powers - the millions of our own union leadership and the billionaire mayor. 

Parent activist Paola da Kock commented on the NYCEdNews Listserve:

Six of these schools opened under Bloomberg.  As might be expected, “the city said it was holding newer schools just as accountable as older ones” instead of acknowledging its reform strategy is a failure.  But where’s the UFT, the organization best placed to stop the madness?  It’s “nothing more than a joke,” quips Mulgrew, “the tea cup ride at Disney.”  Does Mulgrew have a plan besides laughing at this “joke”?  As Norm reported, he does: “If we find any substantial violations of the statute that covers school closings, the DOE can expect to see us in court.”  Look what that did for Beach Channel High School, one of the 19 schools “saved” by the UFT lawsuit last February, which will now be closed.

Paola de Kock

Queens HS parent leader Monica Ayuso said:

There is something more sinister going on a Beach Channel. The building was under major construction work. Therefore, closing the school was always the plan.

Lisa Donlan, followed by Dee Alpert chipped in:

What does the CFE organization say about this? Can the IBO or Comptroller tell us where that money went if it wasn't used to reduce class size? Isn't this the equivalent to the misuse of funds? Don't folks do hard time for less? - Lisa

What is needed is a series of good forensic audits to see how funds were actually expended - as opposed to how they were reported as having been expended.  IBO doesn't do this kind of audit work.  CFE could probably try to get some forensic audits as part of its status in the litigation, but ... .  Ditto for the UFT, which is actually litigating how the NYCDOE actually spent class size reduction funds at this time.

The UFT's new papers in its suit to stop release of teachers' value added reports are interesting in terms of looking at the class size reduction money issue.  It would appear that information principals report to Tweed re a bunch of relevant things - including who is teaching which class - is wildly inaccurate and, of course, unaudited and unverified.  It's hard to see how other teacher assignment/class size data they report would be any more reliable.  It is, of course, interesting that the NYCDOE did not require that principals have teachers check data submitted about them for accuracy.  Principals are, in the wonderful world of Tweed, not only captains of their ships, but also sole creators (or concoctors) of virtually all information regarding their ships' staffs and passengers.  - Dee

The reason that principals are so all-powerful is that the UFT was a co-conspirator with the DOE leaving the union at the school level on a respirator.

The response of the UFT to the closing of schools, if any, is beyond in adequate as they trumpet their phony "victory" last year - which helped Mulgrew gain his 91% victory in the union elections.

As Leonie points out below, the extra help and support has nothing to do with the classroom. Send in another coordinator or teacher trainer - I'd like to see these expert try to teach the large classes for a few weeks and check the results.

Leonie on the NYC Public School Parent blog:

The DOE set the closing schools up for failure

Today, in justifying the eleven school closings, with more to come, Deputy Chancellor Marc Sternberg made the following statement: “Year after year, even as we provided extra help and support, these schools simply have not gotten the job done for children."

Did they ever try systematically reducing class size? No.

Most of these students at these schools continue to suffer from overly large classes that far exceed the state average of twenty students per class, as well as the goals in the city’s mandated class size reduction plan. In fact, class sizes have risen sharply in most of the schools slated for closure.

For example, check out the increases in class size at Beach Channel High school, one of the schools on today’s list of closures, which have occurred despite a promise from the DOE to make specific reductions at this school in return for hundreds of millions of dollars in Contract For Excellence funds.

As Sternberg said, “…we cannot afford to let schools continue to fail students when we know we can do better.”

Most parents and teachers would agree. The Department of Education’s stubborn refusal to follow the law and to allow the students at these schools to have their best chance to succeed is unconscionable, and set up these schools for failure.