Saturday, April 21, 2007

A unique opportunity has been missed

by Norman Scott

The May 9th demo scared the hell out of Bloomberg and would have made a national splash and focused attention on so many of the awful policies as a result of his control of the school system.

In addition, it looks like the back of the coalition forming to stand up to him may have been broken. Divide and conquer, used to perfection. With the cooperation of the UFT.

But the major parties involved are only interested in short-term solutions. Bloomberg hopes he's heading for Washington and so does Weingarten. Probably Klein too.

Andy Wolfe's analysis makes some good points:

"The mayor is intent on neutralizing his opposition and may now have succeeded. Political aides to the mayor fear that the education issue could undermine his nascent presidential bid.

The turmoil over the mayor's education initiatives also has led to serious questions being raised by key leaders in the city's business and philanthropic communities, up to now the mayor's strongest supporters..... In trying to sell the agreement to the uncomfortable parent groups, speaking on a conference call, Ms. Weingarten termed officials of the Department of Education as "absolute and complete assholes" who "can't be trusted."

Just the usual Weingarten rhetoric, words without substance. In the last 10 years I've had the occasion to use this expression so many times: Et tu, Randi?

Wolfe's point is right on:

"many parent leaders believed "we've got them where we want them," wanting no concessions, and preferred holding out for the state Legislature to modify — or eliminate — mayoral control. To them the mission was not to protect the interests of senior teachers looking to retain their ability to move about the system, but to "put the public back in the public schools."

One can't say this enough times. A unique opportunity has been missed.

The NYTimes today says this on the funding plan "compromise":

"The change means that when a veteran teacher paid nearly $100,000 a year retires, a principal can hire a similar teacher or hire a rookie for about $50,000 and use the remaining $50,000 for other expenses."

If this is true, will a principal chose a senior teacher or take the 50 grand? This seems like little change in reality.

The agreement still affects teachers who want to transfer, as that issue is still in grievance, and if you look at the rate of grievance victories (low single digits) that has little chance. With so many teachers already forced into retirement, the transfer issue is just as important. To have left this to the grievance process is a capitulation. People will say, "well in negotiations, there is give and take."

There has never been any give from Tweed, only take. That they sat down at all is a sign of weakness. Instead of negotiations, there should have been take it or leave it demands. The May 9 demo was long overdue.

The basic idiocy of the reorganiztion  plan is still in place (ok, gang, everyone compete, total power in the hands of principals (all too many power hungry and pathological) - except they need permission of the district Superintendents).

The fact that the continued idiocies that will result from mayoral control seem guaranteed to continue in perpetuity. Nothing has changed for the people in the school community who have suffered over the past  the past 5 years.

On class size, I don't care what they say or what committees they form. They do not believe that reducing class size will have the same impact spending money on professional development will. That is their mantra, inherited from Anthony Alvarado. They will say one thing and do another. To put any trust in Tweed given their record is a mistake.

It is funny that Tweed can say they are going to do A,B,C,D horrible things and when they modify D, everyone cheers like it's a victory.

From the very beginning, the focus on the reorganization rather than the entire package of control of the schools by big city mayors and its impact on the schools has made a deal like this likely. And when the leader, the UFT, is always looking to make a deal, the entire movement seemed doomed from the beginning. The groups left out of the process were used and will be very reluctant to get involved in the future. An historic opportunity to bring forces together to become an educational force has been lost. But long-time observers of how the UFT operates are not surprised.

From day one of BloomKlein, the UFT wanted a seat at the table and seems to have gotten it. They also are and will continue to support mayoral control. Their candidate Spitzer confirmed it today.

The strength of any coalition is in the numbers they can bring to the table.

As pointed out, "CEJ is one of the many Community Involvement organizations financed by the Annenberg Institute of Social Reform at Brown University,  headed up by Norm Fruchter, formerly of NYU."

How do they get to be considered representative of local parent groups while groups actually elected (and which had passed resolutions against the reorganizations, no small reason why they weren't at the table) are left out? Who does Fruchter, who has supported much of what Tweed has done, represent?

Where was the "transparency" in these negotiations so many people on this list have been calling on the DOE to show?

The proper way to go about the process would have been to get reps together of all groups to decide on a strategy. But the UFT is always looking to make a deal even at the expense of some of its allies.

A unique opportunity has been missed.

Or has it?

There still is a need to hold a demo at Tweed. People opposed to this agreement should go to Tweed on the afternoon of May 9th and hold a silent vigil.

For more, check my blog:


Anonymous said...

> Please speak out for the inclusion of CPAC in the coalition.

The ironic thing is that neither Martine Guerrier, nor her
employer the DoE, have, or ought to have, any say on who's included in
that coalition. It does appear, though, that the majority of the
coalition members ceded control of the makeup of the coalition to the DoE.

The "compromises" reached here are a collective failure by the
DoE-aligned groups to adequately represent their constituents. Even to
suggest that the immigration groups "got a lot" is probably wrong, since
the immigration constituency and the special ed constituency overlap
with each other as much as with any other constituency.

It appears to me that the leaders of the larger groups are attempting to
score symbolic points for political usage. The leaders of the smaller
groups have been suckered into thinking they're going to advance their
causes with "a seat at the table". It's all very pathetic.

Fair Student Funding is fundamentally flawed. A renegotiation of
weights for different needs groups doesn't address the core problem one bit.

The cogent and critical arguments against the impoverished brand of
standardized test - based "accountability" have been cast aside; our
students will continue to be trained as test takers.

The concessions on teacher salary do not address the essential problem
that principals will still have an incentive to give unduly high
priority to cost cutting.

There are no substantive gains on the issue of class size -- the DoE
will work hard to water down the regulations currently awaited from the
state, and has only committed to "develop[ing] a ... set of
recommendations on how best to implement the regulations" recommendatio
Frog has more teeth than that.

Members of the organizations who betrayed the coalition need to
understand that their breach of trust will make forming the next
coalition far more difficult. The way this was conducted is a gross
insult to the people who showed up at rallies, who wrote letters and
sent faxes, who campaigned personally and got the word out in
communities, with the understanding that a broad coalition had our backs.


Anonymous said...

I think yesterday’s agreement allowed the Mayor to indulge in a classic divide and conquer strategy. Privatization and an extremely flawed accountability system, for example, were left unaddressed. Special education? The incoherent supervisory structure? The mayhem of principals disregarding their schools while they try to make sense of the restructuring and start the endless process of trolling for ESOs, LSOs, PSOs? One of the best mayoral initiatives – equalizing school funding and the distribution of quality teachers – has been left in tatters. Promises of consultation on class size, drop out prevention, and middle school reform seem little more than crumbs. Elected and statutory parent voices were abandoned. I am extremely disappointed, especially when many of us have stood side-by-side supporting our coalition colleagues, expecting reciprocity. The High School Council and others called for a broad public discussion of the interconnected pieces of the Mayor’s plan. Yesterday’s surprise announcement has done a great disservice to public school students by seeming to foreclose that comprehensive, transparent public review. But we should continue to fight for that debate and for constructive DOE responses to unresolved issues. While our bonds are strained, I hope they are not broken.

Anonymous said...

It seems that the agreement says that the individual schools will continue to receive the same amount of money when a senior teacher retires. However, that money can be used to replace that senior teacher with another senior teacher OR replace the senior teacher with a less senior teacher and use the remaining money as the principal sees fit. That still is an incentive to get rid of senior teachers.

I think we need to take a look at our union and what we have allowed to happen over the past few (or not so few) years. As we have allowed the years necessary to reach full pay to increase year after year, we have allowed ourselves to be divided even more. Many younger teachers see senior teachers as concerned only about ourselves as the gap between top pay and beginning pay becomes ever wider. Today a beginning teacher with a BA receives $42,512 while a senior teacher at top pay receives $93,416 (a difference of 120%). If that teacher is a "lead teacher" the pay is $103,416 (a difference of 143%. On top of this add the difference in pension benefits between Tier I and Tier IV. In many ways we have set ourselves up to be divided.

This is the same way that we have set ourselves up to be divided from our students and their parents. Over the years our union has refused to fight for small classes and other reforms that parents see as important for their children, our students. In fact, pay raises and smaller classes have been pitted in a "which do we really want?" format. To many parents we have seemed concerned ONLY about our raises and not about our students.

Anonymous said...

This is well said! The UFT is now essentially endorsing a reorganization that among other things discourages schools from hiring senior teachers. The minor modifications are such that we're going to be using terms like "base teachers" (teachers originally in the school as opposed to the poor suckers who come in later as excessed/ATRs) and "hold harmless" as in supposedly no penalty for replacing senior teacher with other senior teachers but let salary remain a major consideration during hiring (the UFT is only grieving whether you have to put down your salary on the initial application).

Anonymous said...

I have spent the last hour or so catching up
on all this and I didn't know whose email to respond to first! I am
very pleased that Leonie will be part of the discussion going forward,
but, having said that, like many others, I am more angry than pleased
that this so-called agreement was reached.Â
of course I don't object to other parent advocates and groups
participating! but this was another sneaky PR move by the DOE -- like
the appointment of Martine -- to fool the general public (and the
business people who are the Mayor's backers), that parents have come
around and are in agreement with the reorganization. like many on this
list serve, I was at the february rally at St. Vartan's, and while
there were many parent groups there, CPAC is the CHANCELLOR's PARENTS
ADVISORY COUNCIL (I think that's the correct match to the acronym), and
without CPAC at the table, there is no legitimacy to the agreement, in
my opinion.Â
further, while class size is a very important issue, it is far from
the only issue. my main focus is, and has been for years, the excessive
testing and high-stakes testing that is dumbing down our curriculum and
turning our schools into test prep factories, and now, the
concentration of resources on data entry and collection, as though
children can be reduced to the sum of their statistics and teaching is
no longer a profession but a management position. this has not been
addressed at all. and there are many other valid and important issues
at stake, not to mention the haste with which the reorganization is
being carried out. I think it's shameful that this deal was cut and
that there were so many happy faces.Â
as for Martine, I'm not sure whether to email her or not, simply
because it seems a waste of time. her responses are no better than the
automatic responses I get each time I email Klein. the point is, what
do we do now? I am all for marching on Tweed, but it had better be a
massive crowd or we will look like a small group of chronic

ed notes online said...

The Bloomberg response to the increasing threat of a growing coalition of people opposed to Tweed has forced him to give a few crumbs, which the UFT-led groups eagerly lapped up.

Concessions will only only take place in the cauldron of some kind of action.

I want to address this statement:
"One of the best mayoral initiatives – equalizing school funding and the distribution of quality teachers – has been left in tatters."

The irony of the entire mayoral initiative on this issue has been missed by many. While claiming to want distribute "quality" teachers - and I would take issue that a 20 year teacher is necessarily more adept than say a 5 or 7 year teacher - the reality has been that attempts to drive senior teachers from the system have taken place in many schools.

In fact, many of us saw the funding plan for what it was -- an attempt to create a system of "peace corps" teachers who stay no longer than 5 years by giving principals a further incentive to drive senior teachers out. Just think: low salaries, docile teachers who don't know their union rights, few pensions, etc. The mantra is to teacher-proof the process in an assembly line manner and use professional development (often by non-public oranizations - see the 9 whatever they call it groups) to train a contantly turning over staff.

The idea that they want to distribute "quality" teachers is a sham because they could have done so by offering incentives to teachers to teach in certain areas. (When I started teaching in the late 60's they gave every teacher in Title 1 schools extra free time to prepare/recover.)

If you remove teacher salaries from the equation, what other areas has the DOE been able to point to for other inequalities in funding? And since Tweed has total control, what has stopped them from moving money around over the last 5 years to change this? The current reorganization has been unilateral until now and will be so again. This is all about politics, as usual, not education. But it was never about education in the first place.

Anonymous said...

If I read the agreement correctly in the papers, there is still an incentive to get rid of senior teachers.

Anonymous said...

Chancellor Klein's restructuring of school administration
for NYC schools ("Restructuring Of Schools..." on April 17)
reminds me of nothing so much as the agribusinesses that
subcontract the hiring of workers to labor bosses, who
abuse and take advantage of the field workers. The
agribusinesses thereby keep an arms length distance from
the field workers in order to deny they are responsible for
the pay and treatment of the workers.

For the NYC schools, this means the Bloomberg/Klein
administration is bereft of ideas to improve the schools;
are fobbing off the responsibility to a host of
self-serving, profit-making private interest groups; and
Klein and Bloomberg can lay off responsibility for the
inevitable failures on these private groups. Further, it is
a continuation of The Bloomberg/Klein privatization of the
public schools, and the business mentality toward
education, which is wholly inappropriate and has proven
time and again to be unequal to the job.

Providing good education is not a mystery. It certainly
begins with small class sizes and teacher pay high enough
to attract the very best and brightest in a competitive
wage environment. These are very expensive to institute,
but they are indispensable. What Bloomberg and Klein are
doing and saying is simply a distraction, meant to continue
to provide inadequate education on the cheap.

John Norman, a retired public middle school teacher

Anonymous said...

Much has been written on these two lists in the aftermath of the press conference earlier this week announcing an "agreement" among the administration, UFT and others about modifications to the planned reorganization of the school system.
In my opinion, public school parents, who themselves don't always speak with one voice on schools issues, are sometimes on the same page with other entities, sometimes partially so, and sometimes not at all. So although gatherings, press conferences, demonstrations and "agreements" attract more attention when they bring together coalitions of forces, an event peopled primarily by parents and, perhaps, their schoolchildren is a more accurate rendition of what we really think and want to see happen (or not happen) with the school system.
I agree with others who have written that we should go ahead with the previously planned City Hall demo about putting the reorganization on hold, whether it's on May 9 or another day. Many of us have been passing resolutions in our schools and districts asking that the reorganization be placed on hold until it can be properly vetted. Instead, we were informed that it was the demo that had been put "on hold", by not-specifically-named others, and soon after, a press conference with the Mayor, Chancellor, other officials, the Union, and other groups convened to announce an "agreement" to modify parts of the reorganization and move forward.
No one was speaking specifically for, or was authorized to speak specifically for, the bulk of the parents at that press conference, although, again, it's near impossible to characterize precisely what the bulk of the parents want from issue to issue, or who can really speak for them.
So let's have an event where we speak for ourselves, even if that isn't in one neat voice. Mixed gatherings have previously been spun by the disgraceful right-wing tabloid editorialists, and the columnists, op-ed commentators, and think-tankers on the same page with them (as well as, lamentably, some of the elected and appointed officials who control the schools) as puppet shows where one entity (the Union) is pulling everyone else's strings.
If sympathetic public officials wish to stand with us, that would be nice, but we need to make clear that we, on our own, have real issues and that the idea wasn't just put into our heads by others with their own agendas. And we don't need to be co-opted, picked off one-by-one, or to have others claim to be speaking for us if they are primarily speaking for themselves.
So let's just do it, even if organizing it and getting attention paid to it will be more difficult without the weight of the P.R. apparatuses of others behind us.
Richard Barr
V.P., District 3 Presidents' Council.

Anonymous said...

What if....

what if they gave a rally to replace the one now on the back burner, and
everybody came.
no, not the usual suspects.
no, not the union folks.
nor the coalition of political personalities that arrive in time for the
rally and then scurry away, back into the shadows.

what if they held a rally for the disenfranchised
the teachers,
the parents,
and the children that are never really part of the equation anyways.

what if the all came together from near and far
by train, by bus, by car, by feet
what if they came en masse,

and their shouts echoed in the canyons of the city.
and said we dont accept the duplicity.
we dont accept the deals made in darkness.
we wont accept the use of our children as pawns in some elaborate power
driven chess game.
we reject the denigration of our lives, our hopes, and our dreams
we do not agree to the scorn heaped upon us by those we used to trust.

we want the cleansing action of sunlight, on a new day, on a new idea
we want to birth a new reality

what if....

Anonymous said...

Aren't more than half of these postings from your own blog Norm? This is lame!

Anonymous said...

I only saw two of these comments on Ed Notes Blog. It doesn't bother me to see them here too.

Anonymous said...

Leonie Haimson wrote:
> People have asked me about the history of these negotiations - which I was
> only peripherally involved in. This is what I know:
> A week ago last Friday, there were several hours of negotiations at City
> Hall between the City and the UFT, ACORN, and some other advocacy and parent
> groups in the loose association that had formed. I was not invited and did
> not participate. I found out about this only after the fact, on late
> Friday, when I was told that some sort of deal had been worked out, but was
> not told the details. I did learn that some sort of concession had been made
> on the part of the DOE that they would try to work with the UFT and our
> coalition, NYers for Smaller Classes, as well as other stakeholders, to draw
> up the city's class size reduction plan. There were also concessions made
> to the various groups who were more directly involved in the negotiations.
> On Saturday morning, there was supposed to be a meeting at the UFT office to
> go over the details, w/ a possible press conference to follow.
> Sat. morning before I left home, the whole deal was called off, apparently
> by the city.
> Switch to Thursday afternoon. I participated along with many other groups,
> including CPAC, in a conference call, where elements of the agreement were
> discussed in more detail. It was clear that the city had agreed not to cut
> the budgets for any school for at least two years - a big concession as far
> as I was concerned. The Immigration Coalition had the city's agreement to
> raise the weights of ELL students; there were also separate agreements that
> DOE would work w/ CEJ on middle school reform, the Urban Youth Collaborative
> on their Student Success Centers, and some other points. At 3:15 Pm, I
> heard that a press conference was set for 3:30 PM at City Hall. I rushed
> down to City Hall. The main reason I went was I wanted to see exactly what
> the Mayor and the Chancellor would say about class size. (which turned out
> to be little.)
> I felt then and feel now that the city made major concessions - and received
> few in return. The City agreed not to cut school budgets (which is a very
> big deal for my son's school and many other schools throughout the city -
> which justly feared losing millions of dollars.) I also felt and still feel
> that in good conscience I could not reject the opportunity to talk directly
> to DOE and test their willingness to collaborate on their class size
> reduction plan - however this process turns out.
> Among those at the press conference, standing behind the Mayor, next to
> Randi and the other groups who were there, were Robert Jackson and Luis
> Reyes - two men whose integrity and commitment to the cause of public
> schools no one could possibly question. I don't feel as though any of us
> sold anyone else out. I certainly don't accept that any of us "used.our
> children as pawns in some elaborate power-driven chess game."
> I think that if parents want to hold the rally on their own on May 9 that's
> great. We can help publicize it on the list servs and the blog and
> elsewhere. I also feel that the most important thing now is to continue
> working so that our schools can be fundamentally reformed, to make all the
> changes that our children really need. Clearly this agreement is only one
> modest step, to forestall some but not all the destructive aspects of the
> reorganization. The outcome of the process of talking directly w/ DOE is
> uncertain and there is so much work to be done. I know I will continue to
> fight for real change, and I hope others will be there too.

Anonymous said...

It's good to read accounts like this, and I think it would be helpful if
others who were involved would share their experiences.

One thing that I didn't understand until lately, probably because I'm
such a naif, was that UFT had originally organized the coalition.
Clearly it was in their interest *not* to have any ground rules that
would have prevented the preemption and co-opting described here.

It does seem that UFT used the threat of a rally by a large coalition
including parent activists and advocacy groups as a bargaining tool in
obtaining some concessions from the DoE.

But there is now no reason, the coalition having been broken, that UFT
Inc. should have any say over the planned rally or any other organizing
activity. We can, must, and will proceed to demand en masse that this
wrong-headed restructuring plan be stopped.

Leonie, so little could I have imagined that you would be present at
that press conference that I literally didn't see you in the video on (and didn't see the NY1 footage until later). While I
understand your explanation of what went down, there's nothing that I've
read so far that causes me to share your optimism about the value of
the task force on class size. I know that you and others have engaged
in a long struggle to get DoE to even acknowledge the issue as a serious
one, and I agree that it's absolutely vital, but the agreement that's
been struck doesn't seem to me to offer anything concrete. I greatly
respect your tireless activism and long work on this issue. Yet I can't
help but feel that your placement during the news conference in a very
visible spot (while Robert Jackson, say, was off-camera), was a
political calculation on the administration's part.

And while the concession on school budgets is important in some sense,
as an isolated point it is far less than satisfactory -- and as others
have pointed out, it does not resolve the core problem that Fair Student
Funding will still encourage principals to cut costs and hire less
experienced (less expensive) teachers.

The same principle applies for the ELL agreement -- since no special
need population is completely disjunct from all others, under the FSF
rubric, weighting ELL more would seem to take away from other
constituencies. Everything I've heard about the negotiation process
suggests that District 75 advocates were not included as equal partners,
and if true that's inexcusable.

In your account, there's nothing that explains the timing of these
negotiations. I understand that you were personally not very involved
in them. But we are all still left to speculate, and the most
reasonable conclusion is that DoE wanted to create the public illusion
of a resolution well in advance of not only the rally, but also of the
beginning of the SSO selection process.

In the coming days, principals will be attending an "exclusive sneak
preview" of the SSO organizations. Where are the watchdogs who will
ensure that these courtships are above board? Why is the DoE afraid to
let parents and journalists in to see this process? Presumably this
will now be a lower priority on everyone's list, and those new marriages
can begin in a cozy setting without prying eyes. We've already seen,
with the New Visions debacle a few weeks ago, our own "sneak preview" of
what we can expect.

This agreement wrapped up perfectly for the administration. Not only
was it a show full of smiles that would allow the casual observer
(voter) to think that the crisis had been resolved, but it was followed
up by today's Earth Day pageant in which Bloomberg inaugurated a massive
new program of sweeping environmental commitments for the city. The
hope on DoE's part is that attention to the educational issue is
successfully diffused, and that without the participation of UFT and
ACORN, further action of any size won't be possible.

And presumably UFT leadership have what they were seeking -- some items
that can be counted as victories, to be used in sustaining a hold on
power in future elections, which ought not to be too terribly
challenging if 20% voter turnout continues to be the norm in the labor
part of that corporation.

As for the Working Families Party -- in my book they will henceforth be
known as the Working *Against* Families Party.

The deep problems with an increasing addiction to testing, the failures
to address racial inequities in our school system, the essential flaw in
"Fair Student Funding", the hand-waving reductionist approach of giving
schools letter grades, the failure to address the legal hamstringing of
educators and administrators, the despicable continuation of a system
that does not appropriately care for students in need of special
education services, the failure to meaningfully involve parents in
education, and the extremely dangerous move to privatize schools under
the auspices of a doublespeak that claims to offer schools "choice" --
all these problems remain unaddressed by this agreement. A coalition
that had set, as a ground rule, the requirement to achieve solid
commitments on all these points before agreeing to any friendly press
conference or rally "cancellation", would have been a properly formed
coalition. Obviously this one was not.

So let us proceed, happily without the UFT leadership (who represent a
minority of the union's membership in any case), and show Klein, Cerf
and the rest that these 1% measures won't cut it. Let us show the same
degree of boldness that Michael Bloomberg himself asserts, and demand
nothing less than *full* implementation of the kinds of changes that put
parents in charge and that take back our educational system for *all* of
our families. Let these negotiations be the last of the back room
deals. Let's do the rest out in the open, and let Joel Klein and
Michael Bloomberg come out of their palaces and meet us

Anonymous said...

Regarding your comment: "...I remember Tim Johnson of
CPAC being the person who waved me into the Blue Room
at City Hall, past the security detail. I had no idea
of CPAC's exclusion..."

NOTE: I was NOT @ City Hall last Thurs. (4/19). I
rejected the deal the previous Friday (the 13th). My
position was so abundantly clear that the brokers of
the deal didn't even ASK me to attend Thurs.'s event.
The Times, News, Post, Sun, & S.I. Advance all
reported that CPAC was _NOT_ there. You could look it

Tim Johnson, Chairman
Chancellor's Parent Advisory Council (CPAC)

Anonymous said...

Tim Johnson for UFT President. He can smell a rat when he sees one and knows to stay away.

Tired Teacher said...

A truly significant thing here for teachers is that Randi did not stop the mayor's additional incentive for principals to stop hiring senior teachers. Read Edwize and they'd have you ignore it.

It's a very sad day when those who worked so hard for the city turn out to be rubber stamps for Randi and her gang.

Anonymous said...

We don't see much in the agreement for teachers.

Anonymous said...

Another missed political opportunity. Senior teachers are totally screwed!!

Edwize has once again buried their posting on this subject because the comments are not to their liking.

Expect to see another 100 New Teacher Diaries.

Anonymous said...

"Aren't more than half of these postings from your own blog Norm? This is lame!"

From AUA - Another Unity Asshole
(who doesn't have one idea to offer than make a stupid comment.)

Anonymous said...

AUA probably also has a union job and hasn't seen a classroom in years.

Anonymous said...

I agree that the is little in the reorganization that is appealing.

In some ways the reorganization foreshadows the end of public education
in NYC as it another step towards privatization. Who knows how many
away privatization is? Will Bloomberg / Klein attempt re-reorganize
again? That's
doubtful. It will depend how civic minded the next mayor / chancellor

Educationally, in the short run, it seems to me that it is more of the
ineffective nonsense that I have seen for the last 18 years. Someone is
always looking to make a buck selling something from a "quick fix"
to "comprehensive reform" that is neither comprehensive hence is real
and potentially effective reform.

Given the implication to public education, given how it will most
likely not help
us with our working conditions, given that it will most likely not help
the children
in reality; what are you suggesting that we do as ICE the group, or as
individuals ?

Anonymous said...

Sadly, the only thing that's going to stop this reorganization is a
disaster, whether it be natural, terrorist or the full implementation
and ultimate failure of Bloomklein's follies. We are all at a critical
juncture and those of us who understand better than the rest are
responsible to do something....anything.

Anonymous said...

I agree that there has to be a long range strategy. I think that ICE
needs to make slow and steady progress in reaching out to the rank and
file, in whatever way possible. When this reorganization hits home,
there are going to be many people disillusioned with Princess Randi and
they will be looking for some sort of hope and direction. Best, Denise

Anonymous said...

I'd appreciate my emails to the list not being reprinted here without my permission. They are not meant to be your political tool.

Anonymous said...

What political tool? The election is over.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"I'd appreciate my emails to the list not being reprinted here without my permission. They are not meant to be your political tool."

1. If you are anon. what email are you talking about from what list?
2. Anyone can post here -- no restrictions. So whoever is posting whoever's email and whoever is using whoever's email as a political tool for whatever purpose, please desist. Or not.

Anonymous said...

Leonie Haimson's account isn't very different than what Randi reported at the DA.