 |
| E4E continues to grow as member expands |
- Leads to massive E4E member growth.
- Gotham Schools report of 2500 members expected to expand.
- Weiner's weiner to appear on next E4E panel along with Shael Polokow-Suransky and Leo Casey as part of a trio.
Showing posts with label Educators 4 excellence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Educators 4 excellence. Show all posts
Friday, June 3, 2011
Weiner's Weiner Signs E4E Loyalty Oath
Friday, May 13, 2011
Walcott Appointee David Weiner Meets With E4E's Evan Stone and Sydney Morris at Tweed
NORMI-LEAKS
An Ed Notes Exclusive (Not a joke):
Among David Weiner's first appointments in his new position as deputy chancellor for talent, labor and innovation, was a meeting on Thursday May 12 with the leaders of Education 4 Excellence Sydney Morris and Evan Stone. Clearly, his priority is to come up with an innovative way to use E4E to undermine teacher rights. Expect an escalation in E4E's activities with direct access to principals and behind the scenes pressure to allow E4E into school buildings to meet with teachers.
The secret cameras Ed Notes operatives installed throughout Tweed, captured the meeting. Audio is too fuzzy to release but you can just imagine the conversation. An ed notes cluster and free ticket to a screening of the response to WfS goes to the best dialogue submitted by readers.
Evan and Sydney headed over to the big rally after the meeting where I ran into them and we engaged in a mini-debate as we walked. I asked them what they were doing there and they said, "we are against layoffs like everyone else is." They were alone so there was no presence from E4E that I saw as an organization and it would have been a perfect opportunity to bring out all those teachers who supposedly support them to make a show of force that they were more interested in stopping layoffs than killing LIFO.
We did agree on a certain level of whether the UFT put on an effective rally. But more on that some other time.
What I gleaned from our brief conversation was that E4E sees teachers as a hierarchy of effectiveness where I see people as either being competent or not. I asked them if they actually knew ineffective teachers at their school. They were circumspect given they still have ties to their school, which to me means that they think there are some lousy teachers there. I asked if their principal has done anything about ineffective teachers and again they were careful. So these advocates for children when it comes to their own back yard are silent. My guess is that even if LIFO were gone these teachers might still be there due to political relationships which is the driving force in most schools.
By the way, will Sydney and Evan lose their F-status jobs in the upcoming layoffs, which will cost them any claim to still being teachers?
We had a deeper conversation than what I am reporting and I do like engaging them because it illuminates my thinking and it also exposes some thinking that I think more teachers than we like to think agree with. I remember a guy I worked with in my last years who had tremendous resentment about the people he thought were getting away with stuff in his school while he worked his ass off. I too admit to some of that thinking in my early years. So instead of just calling Evan and Sydney and Ruben and other E4E people names, we should go after that way of thinking. Yes, there will always be incompetents, lazies, people who use the system, etc. The simple answer is that every single job has people like this, but the fact that we deal with children, often poor, puts a microscope on us (same with social workers, etc.) (I would point out that bad police have a much more serious impact.)
How do we deal with this? Not by using test scores. My answer has always been a degree of greater control over the schools by teachers themselves, who would be very hard on those who don't pull their weight. (I counter pose these people to those who are simply incompetent.)
Gotta go now. Maybe more thinking about this later.
An Ed Notes Exclusive (Not a joke):
Among David Weiner's first appointments in his new position as deputy chancellor for talent, labor and innovation, was a meeting on Thursday May 12 with the leaders of Education 4 Excellence Sydney Morris and Evan Stone. Clearly, his priority is to come up with an innovative way to use E4E to undermine teacher rights. Expect an escalation in E4E's activities with direct access to principals and behind the scenes pressure to allow E4E into school buildings to meet with teachers.
The secret cameras Ed Notes operatives installed throughout Tweed, captured the meeting. Audio is too fuzzy to release but you can just imagine the conversation. An ed notes cluster and free ticket to a screening of the response to WfS goes to the best dialogue submitted by readers.
Evan and Sydney headed over to the big rally after the meeting where I ran into them and we engaged in a mini-debate as we walked. I asked them what they were doing there and they said, "we are against layoffs like everyone else is." They were alone so there was no presence from E4E that I saw as an organization and it would have been a perfect opportunity to bring out all those teachers who supposedly support them to make a show of force that they were more interested in stopping layoffs than killing LIFO.
We did agree on a certain level of whether the UFT put on an effective rally. But more on that some other time.
What I gleaned from our brief conversation was that E4E sees teachers as a hierarchy of effectiveness where I see people as either being competent or not. I asked them if they actually knew ineffective teachers at their school. They were circumspect given they still have ties to their school, which to me means that they think there are some lousy teachers there. I asked if their principal has done anything about ineffective teachers and again they were careful. So these advocates for children when it comes to their own back yard are silent. My guess is that even if LIFO were gone these teachers might still be there due to political relationships which is the driving force in most schools.
By the way, will Sydney and Evan lose their F-status jobs in the upcoming layoffs, which will cost them any claim to still being teachers?
We had a deeper conversation than what I am reporting and I do like engaging them because it illuminates my thinking and it also exposes some thinking that I think more teachers than we like to think agree with. I remember a guy I worked with in my last years who had tremendous resentment about the people he thought were getting away with stuff in his school while he worked his ass off. I too admit to some of that thinking in my early years. So instead of just calling Evan and Sydney and Ruben and other E4E people names, we should go after that way of thinking. Yes, there will always be incompetents, lazies, people who use the system, etc. The simple answer is that every single job has people like this, but the fact that we deal with children, often poor, puts a microscope on us (same with social workers, etc.) (I would point out that bad police have a much more serious impact.)
How do we deal with this? Not by using test scores. My answer has always been a degree of greater control over the schools by teachers themselves, who would be very hard on those who don't pull their weight. (I counter pose these people to those who are simply incompetent.)
Gotta go now. Maybe more thinking about this later.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Ed Notes in Bid Against Bill Gates for Educators 4 Excellence's Sydney Morris
Last update: Friday, April 15, 12:30PM
I had a lovely chat with Sydney Morris the other night at the post TFA sponsored gathering in a bar. I was duly impressed. I've become a believer in what Sydney has to say. She is all about putting children first and ahead of those nasty adults.
And she is for merit pay. She was obviously a top-notch teacher in her three years in the system before leaving with her partner Evan Stone to organize Educators 4 Excellence (she is supposedly working part-time F-status), where she gets to pontificate on the most important issue facing education and educators today: changing seniority rules.
One million school children and their parents just dream of the day when Sydney and her merry crew of hired staff at E4E win this victory so the sun can shine again and all women will be strong – Sydney clearly wears the pants in E4E – all the men will be good looking and all the children will have the achievement gap closed and be above average.
Sydney was a fabulous teacher totally dedicated to her children but also a firm believe in merit pay. I asked her how much harder she would have worked and how much more she would have closed the achievement gap had she been paid say, $10,000 more? $20,000? $50,000? Wow! Imagine, how the scores would rise exponentially as the piles of cash grew. And since E4E never even mentions class size, we could could pay her that extra money by firing the worst teacher in her school – most likely a senior teacher making a hundred grand despite spending the entire day reading a newspaper or being absent all the time. Just give her all those kids that were being denied an excellent teacher.
Sixty in a class? No problem. Sydney can handle it. As a matter of fact, when I asked why E4E never mentions class size, Sydney did admit class size can make a difference – if we could lower it to 15. "I taught 34 children", she said. "Since we might only be able to lower class sizes at best to 28 the extra 6 children wouldn't make that much of a difference." Now there's a real teacher for you. Sees no difference between 34 and 28 children in a class. I told you the woman was strong.
Well, Sydney wasn't giving me an answer to the contradiction between favoring merit pay and how her performance would have been affected by being offered merit pay.
She switched tactics - said it was all about incentives. Like luring someone from going to work for Goldman-Saks into teaching high school math instead. What a great idea. I hear many people at Goldman are already lining up to teach high school math in the Bronx. And imagine the math scores the GS guys who pulled those credit default swaps will bring in for an extra 10 Grand!
So, I tried another tactic: Getting into a bidding war with Bill Gates for Sydney's services.
"Sydney, how much do I have to pay you to lure you back into to teaching those poor kids you abandoned?"
I'm still waiting for her answer but she smiled at that, so there is hope.
Now you all know that even though I am a Tier 1 retiree, I may not be able to compete with Bill, Eli, DFER and who knows who else funnels money to E4E (check out their fancy new offices at 333 W. 39th Street). But I don't want to leave those poor kids abandoned by a great teacher like Sydney Morris.
So I am pleading for your help. Join the Ed Notes in a gala fundraiser at a time and location to be announced in the interests of children first:
SSBT: Send Sydney Back to Teaching
AfterBurn
Be sure to read my previous blog posts on the TFA/LIFO event over the past few days.
And she is for merit pay. She was obviously a top-notch teacher in her three years in the system before leaving with her partner Evan Stone to organize Educators 4 Excellence (she is supposedly working part-time F-status), where she gets to pontificate on the most important issue facing education and educators today: changing seniority rules.
One million school children and their parents just dream of the day when Sydney and her merry crew of hired staff at E4E win this victory so the sun can shine again and all women will be strong – Sydney clearly wears the pants in E4E – all the men will be good looking and all the children will have the achievement gap closed and be above average.
Sydney was a fabulous teacher totally dedicated to her children but also a firm believe in merit pay. I asked her how much harder she would have worked and how much more she would have closed the achievement gap had she been paid say, $10,000 more? $20,000? $50,000? Wow! Imagine, how the scores would rise exponentially as the piles of cash grew. And since E4E never even mentions class size, we could could pay her that extra money by firing the worst teacher in her school – most likely a senior teacher making a hundred grand despite spending the entire day reading a newspaper or being absent all the time. Just give her all those kids that were being denied an excellent teacher.
Sixty in a class? No problem. Sydney can handle it. As a matter of fact, when I asked why E4E never mentions class size, Sydney did admit class size can make a difference – if we could lower it to 15. "I taught 34 children", she said. "Since we might only be able to lower class sizes at best to 28 the extra 6 children wouldn't make that much of a difference." Now there's a real teacher for you. Sees no difference between 34 and 28 children in a class. I told you the woman was strong.
Well, Sydney wasn't giving me an answer to the contradiction between favoring merit pay and how her performance would have been affected by being offered merit pay.
She switched tactics - said it was all about incentives. Like luring someone from going to work for Goldman-Saks into teaching high school math instead. What a great idea. I hear many people at Goldman are already lining up to teach high school math in the Bronx. And imagine the math scores the GS guys who pulled those credit default swaps will bring in for an extra 10 Grand!
So, I tried another tactic: Getting into a bidding war with Bill Gates for Sydney's services.
"Sydney, how much do I have to pay you to lure you back into to teaching those poor kids you abandoned?"
I'm still waiting for her answer but she smiled at that, so there is hope.
Now you all know that even though I am a Tier 1 retiree, I may not be able to compete with Bill, Eli, DFER and who knows who else funnels money to E4E (check out their fancy new offices at 333 W. 39th Street). But I don't want to leave those poor kids abandoned by a great teacher like Sydney Morris.
So I am pleading for your help. Join the Ed Notes in a gala fundraiser at a time and location to be announced in the interests of children first:
SSBT: Send Sydney Back to Teaching
AfterBurn
Be sure to read my previous blog posts on the TFA/LIFO event over the past few days.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Educators 4 Excellence Update
Oh, where to start? Maybe with South Bronx School: The Two Faced Ramblings Of E4E'S Ruben Brosbe.
I won't be as comprehensive as SBS but just look at a few of Ruben Brosbe's comments in this post on the Gotham Community:
But you know E4E is all about children - when they're not all about adults - E4Eers wanting to make sure they are not laid off - for the sake of the children, of course.
Ruben tells us:
Here is the link to the debate so you can see exactly how well Ruben can copycat:
http://www.ny1.com/?ArID=134963
What the E$E spinmeisters are doing is trying to co-opt the Real Reformers' message about the union. Maybe one day they will actually mention low class size as being good for children. But that might affect their funding from Gates who doesn't believe it - unless for his own children.
But then comes this winner from Ruben:
A teacher advocates for their children. Who does that teacher advocate with? Most often the principal. Who most often gets pissed off at advocating teacher- with threat of U rating to follow if teacher doesn't stop advocating for children. Ruben's answer? Fire that teacher.
Jose Vilson, one of the most highly respected ed bloggers and an organizer of EDUSolidarity comments:
If Ruben has such respect for vet teachers "who continue to work hard and refine their craft" he must be talking about vet teachers who do not work hard and continue to refine their craft. Where are these people? Does he know them from his own school? Or is he talking from theory - that they must exist because Bill Gates and Bloomberg tell him they exist. And where are their principals (or principles)? Where is Ruben's principal if these vets exist in his school? Here is where Ruben won't dare go - his own school because if he is a true advocate for the children he so cares about why doesn't he campaign in his own school to remove these people? Think embarrassing the principal might have repercussions for Ruben?
There's a lot of proof out there that newer teachers who have an intention of making a career out of teaching support LIFO. Witness groups like GEM, Teachers Unite and NYCORE. Check out my co-blogger MAB and GEM's Liza Campbell (Anticipating Fight Back Friday), who also blogs at Gotham Community, as examples. Plus the people like Julie and Brian Jones who are a decade+ in the system.
In fact if you attend this Saturday's NYCORE conference (Whose Schools? Our Schools) at Julia Richman HS (67th St and 2nd Ave) Campus you will see hundreds of younger teachers there who I will bet support LIFO and seniority rules.
E$E coming to your school?
I reported on Sunday night (which you may have missed- E4E Invitation to Lunch n' Learn May Violate More than Rules of Ethics) about a principal inviting E$E into school to speak during a lunch hour. It turns out it was not an L&L but voluntary. I raised the issue of whether Tweed was working behind the scenes to help E$E gain access during the school day. Wouldn't surprise me at all. E$E has paid organizers. All our teachers actually work, so only Angel and I are available to come visit.
A contact spoke to lawyers at the CSA (principals' union) and they were not happy since the CSA supports LIFO. My contact at the school said the E$E rep misrepresented herself and the organization when she came in. I sent the contacts at the school Jeff Kaufman's pieces on E$E published on the ICE blog and they were preparing a reception. (“White Paper” on a Roll: How Ed Deformers Distort the Record on Seniority Layoffs and Up Close and Personal With An Opposition.)
They are also asking the principal if I can come in and rebut but the guys at the school seemed to have the situation pretty much under control (they sent out a mass email to the staff before the meeting.)
E$E is holding happy hours - a free drink if you sign their pledge - so if you hear of any let E$E watch central know and we might send some GEMers over to join them.
Before I go, here is a comment left on Gotham on E$E:
----------
Check out Norms Notes for a variety of articles of interest: http://normsnotes2.blogspot.com/. And make sure to check out the side panel on right for news bits.
I won't be as comprehensive as SBS but just look at a few of Ruben Brosbe's comments in this post on the Gotham Community:
Why Teachers Like Me Support Unions: An E4E Take on EDUSolidarity
But you know E4E is all about children - when they're not all about adults - E4Eers wanting to make sure they are not laid off - for the sake of the children, of course.
Ruben tells us:
When I think of one of the most vital roles of the union however, I think of the protections that allow me to advocate for my students. At a school with more than 33 percent of students requiring special education services and an even larger number who are considered English language learners, I understand how crucial it is that I can speak up for these students if they aren’t getting legally mandated services. This is arguably the foremost job of a teacher, to speak up for his or her students. By protecting teachers who do this, the union is protecting the city’s neediest children. The union is at its best when it is in this role.This caused me to roll around the floor laughing - since Ruben lifted this idea word for word from GEM's Julie Cavanagh who used the exact words when she debated an E4Eer on NY1. E4E loves to tell the people on its email list about the press they are getting. In their update that week they seem to have left out the NY1 debate with Julie kicking ass. (Julie tells me Evan and Sydney were in the Green room coaching their rep and cheering her up after the debate. Bill Gates' money is being well spent.)
Here is the link to the debate so you can see exactly how well Ruben can copycat:
http://www.ny1.com/?ArID=134963
What the E$E spinmeisters are doing is trying to co-opt the Real Reformers' message about the union. Maybe one day they will actually mention low class size as being good for children. But that might affect their funding from Gates who doesn't believe it - unless for his own children.
But then comes this winner from Ruben:
I know I don’t see eye to eye with the UFT on every issue. I don’t agree with LIFO.So let's follow Ruben's logic. Or illogic.
A teacher advocates for their children. Who does that teacher advocate with? Most often the principal. Who most often gets pissed off at advocating teacher- with threat of U rating to follow if teacher doesn't stop advocating for children. Ruben's answer? Fire that teacher.
Jose Vilson, one of the most highly respected ed bloggers and an organizer of EDUSolidarity comments:
from everything I've seen from E$E (appropriate because when you hit shift+4, you get $), you really want to take down the union, not actually help it progress.You and your group have made it so a discussion proliferates between younger and older teachers would rift, not amend, the tenuous relationship between younger and older teachers in our system. As a younger teacher, I'm disappointed that your group also aligns itself unabashedly with anyone willing to corrupt our (albeit not perfect) union.To which Ruben responds:
I don't think that the relationship between senior and newer teachers is strengthened by the current layoff system. In fact, I think when newer teachers look around and see that senior teachers are protected regardless of performance, it breeds resentment, rather than respect. Meanwhile, I have nothing but respect for the veteran teachers who continue to work hard and refine their craft. I have benefited immensely from the help of veteran teachers in my short time in the classroomAgain, a misleading lack of logic on Ruben's part. In fact LIFO protects newer teachers as much as senior teachers. A third year teacher gets priority over a first year teacher. And gets called back in the order of layoff. E$E is trying to exploit the vulnerability of newer teachers through the Gates/DFER funded political, having nothing to do with education) campaign and if we give Ruben the benefit of the doubt, he is a tool.
If Ruben has such respect for vet teachers "who continue to work hard and refine their craft" he must be talking about vet teachers who do not work hard and continue to refine their craft. Where are these people? Does he know them from his own school? Or is he talking from theory - that they must exist because Bill Gates and Bloomberg tell him they exist. And where are their principals (or principles)? Where is Ruben's principal if these vets exist in his school? Here is where Ruben won't dare go - his own school because if he is a true advocate for the children he so cares about why doesn't he campaign in his own school to remove these people? Think embarrassing the principal might have repercussions for Ruben?
There's a lot of proof out there that newer teachers who have an intention of making a career out of teaching support LIFO. Witness groups like GEM, Teachers Unite and NYCORE. Check out my co-blogger MAB and GEM's Liza Campbell (Anticipating Fight Back Friday), who also blogs at Gotham Community, as examples. Plus the people like Julie and Brian Jones who are a decade+ in the system.
In fact if you attend this Saturday's NYCORE conference (Whose Schools? Our Schools) at Julia Richman HS (67th St and 2nd Ave) Campus you will see hundreds of younger teachers there who I will bet support LIFO and seniority rules.
E$E coming to your school?
I reported on Sunday night (which you may have missed- E4E Invitation to Lunch n' Learn May Violate More than Rules of Ethics) about a principal inviting E$E into school to speak during a lunch hour. It turns out it was not an L&L but voluntary. I raised the issue of whether Tweed was working behind the scenes to help E$E gain access during the school day. Wouldn't surprise me at all. E$E has paid organizers. All our teachers actually work, so only Angel and I are available to come visit.
A contact spoke to lawyers at the CSA (principals' union) and they were not happy since the CSA supports LIFO. My contact at the school said the E$E rep misrepresented herself and the organization when she came in. I sent the contacts at the school Jeff Kaufman's pieces on E$E published on the ICE blog and they were preparing a reception. (“White Paper” on a Roll: How Ed Deformers Distort the Record on Seniority Layoffs and Up Close and Personal With An Opposition.)
They are also asking the principal if I can come in and rebut but the guys at the school seemed to have the situation pretty much under control (they sent out a mass email to the staff before the meeting.)
E$E is holding happy hours - a free drink if you sign their pledge - so if you hear of any let E$E watch central know and we might send some GEMers over to join them.
Before I go, here is a comment left on Gotham on E$E:
What I am amused at by the E4E and anti-seniority based layoff crowd is their own assurance that they will not be discriminated against and verily believe they are the "best" teachers (or most effective as they say). Unions, seniority and the civil service system developed in our history to meet a very specific need in our democracy... providing a fair and equitable way to terminate employees in the face of economic crisis. Public employers also saw advantages in using seniority since they could not be accused of discrimination or arbitrariness and at the same time keep the most experienced employees... employees who have a track record of performing their job satisfactorily. The job displacement that seniority based layoffs would create is not different from E4E proposals as allegedly poorer senior teachers would still have to be replaced... replaced by less senior, less experienced teachers. Lets face it any layoff scheme would impact our students negatively. I submit that the current retention policies including hiring teachers who have no intention of becoming senior teachers has had a much greater negative impact on students than any layoff scheme. The heart of E4E anti-seniority based layoff scheme is anti-union. The agenda is driven by the belief that the (or any) union does not belong in the workplace. In their world everyone will earn what they are worth and only the best will survive. Sounds a bit social darwinistic...or maybe they think that's a good thing.Link to comment: http://disq.us/1ci1c3
----------
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.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
E4E Invitation to Lunch n' Learn May Violate More than Rules of Ethics
How is this putting children first? How interesting that it is so easy for E4E to use time that is supposed to be for teachers collaborating together. Think I could get into schools during those times to push GEM's message? Hey, if E4E is coming to your school, ask for equal time. I received this email from a contact.
In my anger, I just wanted to share this with you.
One of teachers at my school invited a woman to meet our Principal, she claims to be part of an organization that encourages teacher dialogue and a fair exchange of ideas. Sounds great. This is just what the doctor ordered at this time. We need to have a place for open dialogue, that doesn’t turn into a personal shouting match. So we invited her to talk at one of our “Lunch and Learns”.I received an email from her, and looked at their organizations beliefs and policies. It was “Educators 4 Excellence”. I called her back and cancelled her meeting with us, told her that she was deceptive by not mentioning their beliefs in LIFO, and Merit Pay during our initial meeting. The principal wants her back, and I told her that I would be the first one protesting and heckling any attempt by her or her organization to talk with my staff.IT gets worse. That evening a friend tells me that Educators 4 Excellence was sponsoring happy hour drinks at the local bar for her school (with the Principal joining them of course). They were given a voucher for a drink in exchange for their signature (that they accept the principals of the organization.) I realized how dangerous and insidious this has become. They are actively recruiting, using almost cult-like methods, appealing to the young teachers whose rights and futures we are trying to protect.
The weird part is, as I confronted the young lady, she still insisted that her organization is open to dialogue and change of ideas. I told her that’s crap because they have a statement of beliefs that say otherwise. She didn’t see a contradiction.
Naturally, some principals love the E4E message - we predicted that the DOE through the backdoor would aid and abet and promote them. I have no hard facts but why not given the political climate - if they are using Parent Coordinators to organize pro-Bloomberg parents why wouldn't they use principals to get E4E into schools to undermine the union? Kudos to my contact for standing firm.
-----
AFTERBURN
Diane Ravitch in Newsweek: Obama’s War on Schools: The No Child Left Behind Act has been deadly to public education. So why has the president embraced it?
More evidence of a shift in the MSM, with Diane given space in Newsweek to tell the truth! Before Newsweek was completely controlled by the deformers. If we get equal time, I think we have a real chance to save public education, because we have research and the views of teachers and parents on our side. - Leonie Haimson http://www.newsweek.com/2011/
Thursday, February 24, 2011
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$ME person in your school, copy and print Jeff's statement for them because most of them know not what they do. OF course, instead of exposing them like Jeff does, Mulgrew chooses to meet with them.
Insiders in the UFT are buzzing about the upcoming challenge being presented by E4E - Educators for Excellence. This will be the first time in history that Unity will face an opponent fueled by billionaires who will pay for a high end ad and PR campaign and other goodies - there are already 4 organizers, with more to come. (They seem to be doing something similar in Los Angeles.)
As we reported (Don't Miss Educators4Excellence Party - Thurs, Feb. 24 at "The American Conference Center," 177 Prince St. on the 2nd floor), today ME4ME is holding an organizing training workshop that they are billing as:
Our sources are telling us today's grassroots training is about chapter organizing with a plan to prepare for chapter leader positions in the spring 2012 elections in preparation for a challenge to Unity in 2013. The platform will be a very simple one issue campaign: getting rid of LIFO.
Now keeping LIFO alive as a hot issue is dependent on layoffs or the threat of layoffs. With Bloomberg's threat this year, ME$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:
“White Paper” on a Roll: How Ed Deformers Distort the Record on Seniority Layoffs
by Jeff Kaufman
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 4th and 5th 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 13th percentile to the 90th 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.
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
MOREOn 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.
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 4th and 5th 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 13th percentile to the 90th 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.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Educators for Excellence Smoking Grassroots
UPDATE LINK: Accountable Talk: An Asshat By Any Other Name
Well, they've won me over. Those whacky kids from E4E are doing grassroots training - it's all for the kids you know. On Feb. 24th you can learn all about advocating for kids - by attacking the rights of seniority and LIFO protections for the kids' long-time teachers. If only the kids could vote...
But as GEMers we love it when people use the expression "grassroots." Even the UFT is talking GR. So, come on now, head on over to E4E training on Feb. 24 at 2PM - do you have anything better to do during your week off? Of course for Evan and Sydney this is not a vacation week since they only work one day a week with that Gates and DFER subsidy.
They're even going to throw you a party at 4PM. It's all so much fun.
E4E planning UFT election run?
I'm thinking - Coming soon: The E4E UFT Caucus to run against Unity in the 2013 election, fueled by big bucks from Gates and DFER. There already a group in LA doing the same thing and backed by similar money. That is part of the ed deform strategy - place 5th columns in all the urban unions to create confusion. They were too late for Chicago where CORE jumped the gun and won power as a reform slate. E4E-like anti-union movements benefit from corrupt, status quo, anti-democratic leaderships, and Unity is a prime target. By sending out their message a certain way they will be able to fool many members and garner support from the increasing numbers of anti-Unity people. They won't win but manage to give the impression that there is more support for their policies than there really is.
I bet that Unity big wigs are actually happy about E4E (maybe explains Mulgrew visit) since Unity can't lose in a stacked deck and an E4E candidacy fueled by big money will drown out any other CORE-like opposition party. And don't forget the Unity-bought New Action Caucus stalking horse to further confuse things.
My advice to the usual opposition groups: walk away from this unless you can bring a strong ground game to match Unity in 50% of the schools. E4E will have no ground game but won't really need one with the big money and a few full-time organizers working the campaign.
Question: Will E4E also try to get some of their people to run for chapter leaders and delegates? I bet not as that will take them into an arena that is way over their heads.
Take Action:
Thu., Feb. 24, 2011
E4E Grassroots Training Party
Are you looking for an interesting way to help your students over the February break?
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.
The event will be followed by a party to celebrate your accomplishments so far this year and to acknowledge your continued commitment to students.
Location: TBD
When: 2:00 PM
Ends: 4:00 PM
Tickets
If you are going, send reports of all the fun. Reports that the location has been discovered and there will be pickets outside are unsubstantiated.
Well, they've won me over. Those whacky kids from E4E are doing grassroots training - it's all for the kids you know. On Feb. 24th you can learn all about advocating for kids - by attacking the rights of seniority and LIFO protections for the kids' long-time teachers. If only the kids could vote...
But as GEMers we love it when people use the expression "grassroots." Even the UFT is talking GR. So, come on now, head on over to E4E training on Feb. 24 at 2PM - do you have anything better to do during your week off? Of course for Evan and Sydney this is not a vacation week since they only work one day a week with that Gates and DFER subsidy.
They're even going to throw you a party at 4PM. It's all so much fun.
E4E planning UFT election run?
I'm thinking - Coming soon: The E4E UFT Caucus to run against Unity in the 2013 election, fueled by big bucks from Gates and DFER. There already a group in LA doing the same thing and backed by similar money. That is part of the ed deform strategy - place 5th columns in all the urban unions to create confusion. They were too late for Chicago where CORE jumped the gun and won power as a reform slate. E4E-like anti-union movements benefit from corrupt, status quo, anti-democratic leaderships, and Unity is a prime target. By sending out their message a certain way they will be able to fool many members and garner support from the increasing numbers of anti-Unity people. They won't win but manage to give the impression that there is more support for their policies than there really is.
I bet that Unity big wigs are actually happy about E4E (maybe explains Mulgrew visit) since Unity can't lose in a stacked deck and an E4E candidacy fueled by big money will drown out any other CORE-like opposition party. And don't forget the Unity-bought New Action Caucus stalking horse to further confuse things.
My advice to the usual opposition groups: walk away from this unless you can bring a strong ground game to match Unity in 50% of the schools. E4E will have no ground game but won't really need one with the big money and a few full-time organizers working the campaign.
Question: Will E4E also try to get some of their people to run for chapter leaders and delegates? I bet not as that will take them into an arena that is way over their heads.
Take Action:
- Looking for something fun to do over the Feb. break? Join us for a Grassroots Training Party so you can get the tools and resources you need to become a better advocate for your students!
- WHEN: Thursday, February 24th (2:00 - 4:00PM with a party afterwards!)
- WHERE: Location TBD
- RSVP: By clicking here!
All our best,Evan and SydneyE4E Co-Founders
Thu., Feb. 24, 2011
E4E Grassroots Training Party
Are you looking for an interesting way to help your students over the February break?
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.
The event will be followed by a party to celebrate your accomplishments so far this year and to acknowledge your continued commitment to students.
Location: TBD
When: 2:00 PM
Ends: 4:00 PM
Tickets
| Level | Description | Price | # |
|---|---|---|---|
| E4E Grassroots Training Party | Come get the tools to help you advocate for your students! | FREE | click here! |
If you are going, send reports of all the fun. Reports that the location has been discovered and there will be pickets outside are unsubstantiated.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Mulgrew to Speak to Restricted E4E Event
| You and the UFT: A Conversation with UFT President Michael Mulgrew This is an extraordinary opportunity for teachers to meet, ask questions of, and hear from President Mulgrew of the United Federation of Teachers. This continues E4E's series of Q&A events with important policymakers. This speaker series is designed to give teachers direct access to the individuals who make decisions that impact our profession and our classrooms. We hope you can join us to share your voice! WHEN: Tuesday, January 25th (6:00 - 7:30PM) WHERE: Location TBA RSVP REQUIRED: Please RSVP by clicking here. *Due to limited space and the importance of maintaining a conversational atmosphere, we will be using a lottery system to select attendees for this event. Please RSVP as soon as possible to enter your name into this lottery. If selected, you will be notified by e-mail with further event details no later than January 21st. Thank you for your understanding.* |
--
The Dudes Are Out at Educators 4 Excellence: Funded by Gates, A Fact Ignored by Gotham Schools
I wrote a post in June saying that they were getting funding from Education Reform now. http://gothamschools.org/
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Educators 4 Excellence Make an Offer You Can't Refuse: Get Your School a Free Happy Hour
How nice of Evan and Sydney, who left teaching, to take money out of their pockets and offer you all a nice school party. And WOW! Become an E4E school capitano. Get all your colleagues to call for pay based on your students' test scores and get them to back Black&Bloom when they lay off thousands of teachers to keep the newest/cheapest ones and get rid of those high priced senior teachers. What they are not telling you is that their happy hours are like those free trips to resorts where they lock you in a room for hours and you have to listen to the schpiel.
 | |
Dear E4E Members and Supporters, Happy Turkey Day! Enjoy the much-deserved time off! But before you doze off into your food coma...check out this week's latest in education! Learn:
Take Action:
| |
 |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)