Thursday, February 08, 2018

ATTEMPT TO GET UFT UNITY TO JOIN NYSUT TO OVERHAUL TEACHER EVALUATIONS FAILS AT DA

At last night's Delegate Assembly, I attempted to get the Unity Caucus dominated body to see reason and work up in Albany to scrap the teacher evaluation system as a top legislative priority. I was as usual voted down by the Unity dominated Delegates. This is the motion and most of my remarks in favor. I was rushed by President Michael Mulgrew but got in most of what I wanted to say.

Resolution on changing Teacher Evaluation System
February 7, 2018


Whereas, NYSUT President Andy Pallotta called for an end to using student test scores in teacher evaluations;
Resolved, that the UFT will join with NYSUT to make it a major legislative priority to eliminate student test scores from teacher evaluations and return teacher evaluations to local control.


We got a hint from Presidents Mulgrew and Pallotta  about UFT and NYSUT’s Albany priorities in teacher evaluations in recent testimony to the legislature. President Pallota said that  “Teacher Evaluations should be returned to local control with no state mandates.” He also said, “...changes in the federal law contained in the Every Student Succeeds Act eliminated the mandate for testing in teacher evaluation.”


UFT President Mulgrew said something a little different in Albany.


The UFT still wants to use student assessments to rate us and that is the wrong approach.


The argument given by the UFT leadership is that under the current evaluation system, very few teachers are rated ineffective, way less than were rated unsatisfactory in the old system. That argument is incomplete. Ratings only tell part of the story. Since we have so few adverse ratings, it would logically follow that fewer teachers would be facing dismissal charges compared to the old S or U system but data I've seen does not bear this out.

366 tenured educators were charged under state law in 2014 followed by 392 in 2015 and 381 in 2016. Average in the Bloomberg years from 2002-2013 when we had the S or U system was just 271. If the evaluation system was so great, because it produces so few adverse ratings, tenured educators facing dismissal hearings should be declining dramatically but they are not. They are up and anyone who gets two ineffectives under the current system has the burden of proof on them. Nobody in the old system carried the burden of proof. A few more tenured educators are actually losing their jobs in 2016 compared to the last two Bloomberg years according to analysis I was shown. We’ve gained nothing from having fewer ineffectives.


What about probationary teachers? A person a very close to me was a probationary teacher rated effective last year. She was also discontinued. There were others as well. Who cares if you are rated effective if you don’t have a job. Our ratings mean nothing to our bosses so why should all of us have to struggle with a system that requires intimidating Danielson drive-bys with cookie cutter rubrics and student growth measures that are often incomprehensible when the federal law no longer requires these mandates? Let’s start over.

One cannot fully comprehend how awful the evaluation system is until you have lived under it so may I please ask that someone who works under Advance speak in favor of it and not an officer or union employee. Those up on the stage have never lived under Advance.


To their credit, after I yielded the floor the officers did not raise their voting cards to speak but a Chapter Leader from a closing school who is in Unity rose to give the rebuttal against me.

She didn't refute any of my points that the test scores and overall rating are hugely irrelevant to whether our jobs are placed in jeopardy but instead said that the student test score results saved her rating because she was a Chapter Leader who spoke out. That was enough to persuade the vast majority of the Unity loyalty oath signers to vote against my resolution.

I lost the vote but the the rank and file in the schools are really the ones who are being defeated. Pulling your dues post Janus decision isn't going to make it better.

After the vote, Mulgrew felt the need to inappropriately respond to me by noting that he and Pallotta sat next to each other in Albany and then he pointed out that educators are still facing 3020a (dismissal) hearings at high rates because the Department of Education is throwing so many charges at them, hoping something will stick. He ironically was making my point that the ratings really don't matter much.

I've tried to use logic two years in a row to convince Unity Caucus that the membership hates the evaluation system and we need to replace it. Can anyone help me out?

57 comments:

Anonymous said...

AND THEY STILL WANT MY UNION DUES AFTER JANUS?
THEY BETTER WAKE UP BEFORE THEY FIND THEMSELVES DE-FUNDED AND BACK IN THE CLASSROOM

Anonymous said...

James, you should read Cervantes’, Don Quixote. It may put things in perspective for you. I do applaud you, however - even though you like Winston.

Anonymous said...

James:

Albert Shanker knew that CSA members didn't find the observation and evaluation procedure to be helpful to them when they used to be UFT members.

http://source.nysut.org/weblink7/DocView.aspx?id=709

How about polling your readership regarding their experiences with the Danielson observations or their experiences in being observed by Field Supervisors?

James Eterno said...

I read the comments regularly and use them to help guide my thinking on where the membership, or at least the membership that reads the Iceblog, stands. Some of the comments frighten me but on evaluation left, right, center, apolitical pretty much agree it is an anti-teacher system.

ed notes online said...

James - I thought that using those numbers was the weakest part of your argument since given a 100+ k member union the differences are relatively insignificant.
There was a chance to tie in the number of observations while you had the floor.
YOu made a great point in asking that a classroom teacher oppose it instead of a union bureaucrat.
The CL of PS 25 in Dist 16 who did oppose it is one of the closing schools -- leaving the entire building to charters. There was a hearing at the school the night before and I heard nothing of a UFT presence to defend the school.
Unity is as Unity does.

James Eterno said...

Debate 101 is you make your opponent's best argument and show its flaws. MULGREW'S big seller for eval is few people are rated ineffective. I showed how that does not matter. I touched on observations Norm but I did that fully last year in trying to get UFT to push for two a year. Logical argument has no place at the DA. It sometimes does not work with Norm either.

Anonymous said...

As much as I hate Mulgrew, I do agree that the testing aspect of evaluations system can be a good thing. If a teacher is rated "developing" on classroom observations but gets "effective" on the state tests, he or she gets an overall rating of "effective". This is awesome if you work for a shitty principal and or, you do not teach in a tested subject class. However, the BIG problem is Danielson and the 4 observations. They are the horrible aspects of the evaluation system an need to go asap. I still hate Mulgrew with massive contempt for not supporting NYSUT in their quest to get evaluation choices made at the local level. If this law passes, (and it might very well pass since Cuomo needs us), then we could theoretically negotiate getting back to the good old days of the S/U system. It seems to me that Mulgrew is loosing his mind these days. The rank and file are beyond pissed at him due to our shitty evaluation system and day in and day out he keeps on supporting it. I for one will be pulling my dues and taking my chances come Janus if he does not get us a fair evaluation system that is in synch with the rest of the state. Hate me all you want, but I can not and will not support the UFT if they stay on the path that will continue to lead to my misery in my profession.

Anonymous said...

How about we get some momentum for the " give me back my Monday and Tuesday afternoons" caucus. A consistent workday 5 days in a row. No PD since it's really just faculty meetings and useless when actually done AND it doesn't count for CTLE. Give me that and you can keep my dues. I can live with anything else and I'll even toss in a few bucks a check for paid family leave.

So who wants to join the GMBMMATA Caucus?

Anonymous said...

There is no way in Hell that the DOE is gonna cut Mon and Tue PD hours and give us a raise. I don't know what you are smoking to even think that is a possibility.

Anonymous said...

155 minutes a week of my life back is a raise for. In time for money we may actually make out more than the piddly raise we will most definitely get.

Anonymous said...

Of course the DOE has Mulgrew in their pocket.

Anonymous said...

155 minutes is fine if you want it back, but don't expect to get a raise on top of that. Are you asking to get rid of the 155 minutes and get no raise? That is a legitimate deal but it ain't gonna happen as teachers in this City are looking for a raise, even if it is 2%. As for me, I remember the 2005 contract when the lame rank and file agreed to the additional 155 minutes. We got a big 15% "raise" but it was really not a raise since we agreed to work for more time. Just another slap in the face of a deal that UFT threw at us suckers.

NYC Educator said...

Just for the record, the testing can also be a bad thing. I know someone who was rated ineffective only because of the testing. Personally, I'd like something better than a crapshoot when it comes time to protect my livelihood. I'm glad for that chapter leader, but a crapshoot was precisely what she was defending.

Anonymous said...

The school i am in has 1 hour periods but only a 45 minute teacher lunch. Is that the contract being important. We have to do coverages for free on our c6 period too.

Anonymous said...

Lesson plans lesson plans lesson plans This is all I hear. I thought the judge ruled in our favor.

Anonymous said...

there will be a $50 dollar signing bonus and our contract will say whatever the DOE wants and it will pass. Rank and File is clueless.

Anonymous said...

Ok, Ok. everybody has their panties in an uproar over the evaluation system. Some people want one thing, some want another. I HAVE AN IDEA! How about we let Mulgrew get behind NYSUT and allow the State law to be changed so local districts can create their own evaluation systems! That way, locals and the districts can create evaluation systems based on CHOICE. You know, CHOICE! You want 2 observations? No problem. You want test scores to count as part of your evaluation? No problem. The simple fact is that there is a massive teacher shortage looming. NYS is coming to it's sense and realizes that it about time to give back local control to districts in regard to evaluations. Mulgrew needs to get on the bandwagon and go with the flow.

Jr said...

How about this one? We now must take interns, seniors who dont want actual classes, of course they get free credits, we have them follow us around for 3 hours every single day, even if ee dont want them in or classes on our prep, and they just fuck around...UFT? LEGAL?

Anonymous said...

7:55

YES!!! This is EXACTLY what's going on. Who knew abusing teachers would essentially almost shut down the teacher pipeline. Well, rank and file knew. The powers that be didn't. Their plan to chase us all out and replace us with laptops imploded.
You wouldn't believe the complete LOSERS the DOE is now forced to hire. Any normal or intelligent human being would not apply for a teaching position in NYC after what has gone on the last 15 years. My school cannot even get a decent sub! A freaking SUB?!? What does that tell you?

Anonymous said...

I support most things you propose, but I have to say you do not present your motions well. One thing you do is expect hostility, so you start hostile. You also talk too long. I can’t stand when any presenter (either sides) talks too long. Get to the point-it’s not about you. You lost people and you annoy, you did not change opinions. I am writing this because I want you to succeed-even if you are voted down, you need to be heard and your thoughts get into the heads of others. Hearts and minds. Hearts and minds.

Your point was that for the majority of people, this observation plan is wrong, painful and cruel. Teachers should be observed twice, unless low numbers. Test grades should only come into play when observe numbers are low. And, if the teacher has poor numbers for observations but good numbers on tests, there should be an investigation of the admins who are giving low scores on observations. They need to prove their numbers.

***Yes, I know they will be hostile, but Mulgrew was actually quiet for a chunk of a time.

Anonymous said...

YES! Great point Anno 10:26. Simply make the point of the resolution and leave it at that. This is such a simple subject. However, I give huge respect to MORE for fighting the good fight on observations. This is the one topic that every teacher at my school is livid about. I am still very happy that I voted MORE. Keep the feet of Mulgrew to the fire on the observation system and keep the fore going at the 300 member Bargaining Committee! (Which is secret of course, but we have MORE members in there from what I hear)

Anonymous said...

5:11 Ditto!!! Keep fighting MORE!!! We need ALL ideas to be heard at the UFT!!

Anonymous said...

JR, How do you think that graduation rate hit 74% in NYC? Let the kids do what they want and pass them all.

James Eterno said...

2018 9:46:00 AM
Did anyone get point that fewer ineffective ratings is not helping us?

10:26, I have been in opposition to Unity at the DA for over 20 years and did ten at Exec Bd too. The hostility and groans are automatic from Unity. It is a bully tactic to stifle dissent. They try to make me feel uncomfortable. I expect it. That hostility you speak of is a two way street. You think if I was friendlier I would get Unity support? I've tried.

As for editing and being brief, I disagree. If I don't make the points that need to be made with supporting details, I will get shot down using the same old argument on how few ineffective ratings there are under the current evaluation system. It takes more than 30 seconds to shoot holes in the Unity argument. We do not have more job security because we have fewer ineffective ratings.

As to MORE leading this fight on evaluations, MORE caucus, and even close friends in MORE, wanted to bring up other motions and not evaluations. This was my motion not vetted by anyone except one teacher at Middle College. I wrote it influenced largely from comments on last week's ICEBLOG postings on testimony Mulgrew and Pallotta gave in Albany. Our report on Mulgrew's testimony is our most read post by far in a long time. Your reaction here at ICEblog is what helped to motivate me.

Anonymous said...

Just had a meeting with the membership committee from Unity to talk about Janus.
Asked the nice person what kind of car they drove.
She said a Honda.
I hope Unity isn't paying these people who drive scab cars with my hard-earned union dues.
We're either Union or not.
Take a stand!

Anonymous said...

The current observation system is very shrewd in that on the surface it pretends to be an effective way to judge a teachers competence, but in reality it was designed to have every teacher on edge, every period, every day, waiting for the admin to walk in with the clipboard. You better be on your game and if the admin dos t like you, they can go to town ripping you to shreds. It's a bogus system and most teachers see it for what it is.

Anonymous said...

James, you are wrong. Yes, I wrote the post 10:26. I’m your audience. I agree with your words and beliefs and all I can think when you get up there is, “Sh*t or get off the pot.” I get it, the system is garbage and hurtful and devastating, but you didn’t put that out there. You ranted. Even if though I agree with the rant, it’s not helpful.

The people who behave poorly are garbage, but when you present, you are representing an opinion shared by many and you do a disservice to all the people who support you.

You didn’t make the points you wanted to because your statements were too long, hostile and unheard by most. People turn off. You were actually given a long time- which was a first for Mulgrew, he’s usually rude immediately.

I’m not asking 30 seconds, but just be clear and brief. You buried the lead. “We need a new observation system because this one is punitive, morale killing, and professionally unhelpful. I believe with Janus around the corner, we need this union to stand up against this abusive and toxic system and everyday teachers need to see and feel this. Let’s first start by lowering the number of observations to 2, except for people rated D or I. And, then let’s move further away from being evaluated on student testing, (which I know you, Michael, agree with because you have been pushing other types of assessment). The fewer I’s does not make teachers feel safer or feel that they have job security. We need to change this. I believe supporting Nysut in this is the first step.”

If you said that, they would probably still voted you down, but they would’ve know you were correct. And, that’s the seed you need to plant.

And, I’m sorry for not heeding my own advice and writing too much.

Anonymous said...

I got an idea: How about MORE brings up the evaluation change for a resolution at EVERY SINGLE DA MEETING. There is nothing that could stop MORE from doing that. Also, I think it is about time that somebody set up a petition to the UFT/DOE that says we want 2 observations for tenured teachers and the elimination of Danielson. The petition for maternity leave got 8,000 signatures. There are about 80.000 NYC teachers. I have a feeling that pretty much 99% of those 80.000 teachers want 2 observations and the elimination of Danielson. I am not good with computers. Anybody want to set up a petition?

James Eterno said...

10:26, We're talking around each other. You are really not addressing my main point on how the Unity argument is that there are fewer ineffective ratings under the new system but it does not lead to more job security is mistaken. We needed to show some proof that this is the case. Mulgrew felt he had to respond after the vote so I'm good with that. If I gave a speech as you intended,Unity would have used the same old argument about how almost nobody is rated ineffective anymore so things must be good. I'll stick to the boring numbers and the defend the people being discontinued.

Also, I raised the resolution on the number of observations being reduced to two in January of 2017. It was shot down by Unity because almost nobody is rated ineffective these days.

Look at this post which is mostly what I read almost word for word. Where is the hostility? The hostility comes from Unity and it's preplanned for whenever I speak. I've been doing this for 20 years. I started my speech by praising Pallotta's testimony and pointing out that the UFT took a different approach in Albany. That's not hostility; it is honest disagreement. Then I presented the argument on how fewer ineffective ratings don't lead to more job security for tenured educators with supporting evidence and then when I wanted to say something about the probationary teachers still getting discontinued even with effective ratings, Mulgrew tried to tell me to wrap it up. No way! I'm not going to get bullied and be polite for the sake of being polite. My audience is not the Unity Delegates, it is the rank and file.

Happy to have this debate too. I can retire yesterday so others like you 10:26 are going to have to carry the torch soon. Good luck being friendly with Unity. It will get you a job maybe but won't help the teachers in the schools.

Anonymous said...

Question: What are the chances that NYSUT gets Cuomo and Legislature to make the change so evaluations are to be made at the local level? I think that Cuomo would be open to the idea since he is a lame duck governor and he has dreams of running for president and would like to have teachers backing him. Also, if the law is changed, does that mean that local districts could theoretically revert back to S/U? I would really like to hear thoughts on this. Since Mulgrew is being an ass, maybe the change we need will come via the NYSUT and Cuomo. (However, whatever is left of the UFT would probably mess up any local evaluation change and keep our current evaluation in place here in NYC) God, I hate Mulgrew!!!

James Eterno said...

7:39, Except for saying that Cuomo is a lame duck governor, he is running this year, I essentially agree with you. It is up to us, the rank and file, to bring this up to our chapter leaders and delegates and hammer away at them so that the UFT gets on board that we need to get rid of the whole evaluation system and go back to S or U. We could organize around this issue and have the left, center, right and apolitical in the UFT rank and file all with us. We need to exert pressure now during the legislative season.

James Eterno said...

7:03, There have been three resolutions on evaluations since January 2017. Two were brought to the DA by me on my own and one was brought up at the Executive Board by the MORE-New Action reps. MORE has other priorities in 2018 such as Black Lives Matter. I went through some MORE folks who did not exactly encourage me to do an evaluation resolution even after Mulgrew gave his testimony in Albany saying the NYC evaluation system could be a model for the whole state to use. I was outraged after reading what Mulgrew said in his testimony. I felt the need to respond. That ICEBLOG posting where I exposed Mulgrew's remarks in Albany now has more hits than anything we've put out in years. Only Mulgrew and Unity are the defenders of the current system.

One more thing 10:26: Had I politely sat down when Mulgrew told me to wrap up, I would not have been able to say that it should be a person who lives under Advance who should respond and not an officer or union employee. That led to the kind of silly rebuttal from the Unity Chapter Leader which didn't address anything I said so then Mulgrew had to respond. Even Norm, who did not encourage me to bring eval up, thought that was my best point.

Once again, I really hope people like you take over when I retire. All I can say is it isn't easy but telling truth to power is kind of its own reward. I really don't give a hoot what Michael Mulgrew or the corrupt Unity machine thinks of me.

Anonymous said...

Start an Online Petition for NYC teachers in the trenches: Let the rank and file speak to Mulgrew
2 Observations
End Danielson, Matrix Ratings
Return to S/U Rating Model

Anonymous said...

I AM SO DOWN FOR THIS PETITION IDEA! If maternity leave can get 8,000 signatures, we should be able to get twice that.

James Eterno said...

It was 80,000 for parental leave. I think you are onto something.

Anonymous said...

Who is making the petition? I'll sign.

Anonymous said...

Me too!

Anonymous said...

Here is what the petition should say.: (Feel free to edit and or use these words if anybody can put the petition together) "Teachers in New York City are being marginalized by not being treated as the professionals that they are. Current New York State Education law states that all teachers in New York must have a minimum of one formal teaching observation conducted by a school administrator and one informal observation conducted by an outside evaluator. However, teachers in New York City are forced to endure at least 4 observations, 3 of which are informal and one of which is formal. The vast majority of school districts outside of NYC their teachers as professionals and follow 2 observations for tenured teachers. We believe that tenured teachers in NYC should be observed in accordance with NYS law. As such, tenured teachers in NYC should be formally observed one time, and informally observed one time. Non tenured teachers and or teachers rated ineffective may be rated under the current NYC model of one formal observation and 3 informal observations."

Anonymous said...

If NYS law changes to allow locally negotiated changes to our evaluation, a new petition should be made to return to S/U.

Anonymous said...

How about just a no confidence petition for UFT/Mulgrew?

Anonymous said...

How about we all pull dues after Janus till Mulgrew gets us a real evaluation system put in place? Let him eat White Castle for a while instead of caviar.

James Eterno said...

The petition does not have to be that elaborate guys. All we need to do is repeal State Education Laws 3012-c and 3012-d and evaluations for teachers would return to the old S or U system. Also, the CTLE hours on our own time would be gone too. Those laws are not needed to get federal money any longer because the ESSA law took out the requirement that teachers be rated in part by student test scores. It is rather simple.

Anonymous said...

Ok James, could you write one up? I would be more than happy to spread the petition to tons of teachers in NYC. I have been in the system since 97'. Let's get this rolling!

James Eterno said...

I will do it but I need a day or two to make sure I get this right: OK?

We are becoming a virtual movement here online exchanging ideas and it is kind of cool. We're leaving Unity in the dust; hopefully the other opposition groups will join us.

Lori said...

But if we get one formal and one informal then we are still just as stressed waiting for that drive by that could come at any moment.
That is the real stress.

Anonymous said...

I’m 10:26.

I’m glad you wrote a second comment since I didn’t like your first snarky comment about being nice to UNIY. I helped knock out 2 UNITY candidates in my school. I’m not MORE because there are a few people in MORE that are too much for me and I cannot stand with them. I do vote for MORE candidates and have talked many into voting for them, too.

I was glad that you asked for someone who is under this system, but your tone was hostile (even if it wasn’t your intent). I understand that it is unpleasant when you stand up because some people behave like children, but you need to be above that. It’s not about being nice, it’s about being better than them. You won’t reach those people. They aren’t your audience.

You should’ve also predicted that type of response, so you should have countered before someone spoke. You should’ve said that you know there is a small subset like CL’s that are protected by this and that in this new system there should be protections for CL’s and delegates and whistleblowers. That would’ve knocked out that excuse because the remaining group would be senior teachers and since they won’t admit there is a problem there, they couldn’t attacked you in that manner. (And, if they used senior teachers, that would be great because that would open a big can of worms for them and that would be very useful in debates, flyers and new motions.)

Maybe you should test your speeches on a couple of teachers at your school who aren’t affiliated with Unity or MORE to see what they think. You may also want to test it on people who go to the DA so you can plan to say things that will counter predicted responses.

I hope you do a new one next month about requiring CTLE hours at teacher conferences and PD day. Some AP’s send teachers out for CTLE hours on PD days, but some keep teachers in and it is a waste of time. I don’t need the hours, but I think it stinks that other teachers don’t get what they need. This would be another way to push local control for teacher evaluation. Again, I would bring up Janus and this would show NYC teachers that the UFT are fighting for them, not against them. It would also show that in the next election, MORE candidates are trying to help everyday teachers. Election flyers would write themselves.

(You also need to make better MORE flyers. They need to be designed better, more reader friendly, and more appealing for voters, but that’s a different comment.)

Anonymous said...

I just read James speech. It took me 2.5 minutes. Mulgrew gets five years to push this eval shit and Unity and other assholes at the meeting can't sit and listen to an opposing voice quietly for five minutes. No wonder we are where we are.

Anonymous said...

Well, I guess that makes me an asshole (and I’m not opposing what he says). I’m trying to get him to present his side better so he is heard and listened to. He is not reaching people. He is turning people off-even people who agree with him. Talking for 1 minute or 10 minutes doesn’t matter if you don’t reach your audience. (It took longer than 2.5 minutes-reading and speaking takes different amounts of time.)

I want his ideas to spread and action to happen. If you don’t have a spokesperson who is appealing to the audience, you don’t get anywhere. (DIdn’t the last presidential election prove that?)

Anonymous said...

You sound like Unity trolling here to me. Try to get opposition off its game by planting doubts.Hall is predisposed to be against anyone who is not Unity. Presentation doesn't mean shit.

James Eterno said...

Chapter Leaders are not protected by Advance 10:26. I can tell you that from experience at Humanities and the Arts, my wife's former school. Again, please read what I said and wrote. The ratings don't matter in terms of job security.

If I am a poor spokesperson, as bad as Hillary Clinton, then how did I get elected to the High School Executive Board for ten years with no Unity endorsement? Queens High Schools is where the most high school votes came from in the last election where MORE-New Action won the majority of the high school votes with me as the standard bearer for HSVP. I got more high school teacher votes than Janella Hinds. I campaigned extensively in 2016 in Queens. How was I elected CL for 18 years at Jamaica HS and Delegate from MCHS in 2015, a school where I was an ATR at the time and had competition from someone from inside? I must have done something right.

Congratulations, you've managed to get under my skin, however, when you start comparing me to Hillary Clinton, that is about the right time to not take this seriously any longer. That is just a little too out there for me. Free speech wins so you can keep insulting me but I'm not taking it as anything more than a joke moving ahead.

As for the resolutions you want brought up, you should go ahead and write them and bring them up. I mean that. If you want, I would gladly help you as the motions I write are usually not rejected as out of order. Just email me at iceuft@gmail.com.

Anonymous said...

Wow, I find it fascinating that some people here complain about the behavior at the DA, but then when I honestly am trying to tell you what you are missing at the DA meetings I’m called a troll by people.

You won because you make the correct stand on most things and people know that. They hear about it and read about it. What they don’t see is your presentation at the DA. I see that. I’ve seen it for many years. You have changed your presentation over the years. Mulgrew and his henchmen/women are often very rude to you and it has made you speak in a different manner than you used to.

Mulgrew gets bashed for not listening outside his little bubble. Sadly, for all the people who are/were looking for you to be a voice of reason, you are insulating yourself with your own bubble. If you don’t see that in all my comments I’ve been trying to get you to see that you are failing in your presentations, then I have failed in mine. Good luck. I’m done.

And, being compared to Hillary shouldn’t be an insult. She’s a smart woman who should be president.

And, after dealing with Ms. Hinds, I won’t vote for her for anything.

And, to the person who called me a troll. If you read all my comments, you would’ve have noted that I’ve mentioned that he wouldn’t get the votes, but it was about hearts and minds. He needs to get it into their heads. When Janus hits, those Unity perks are going to start to disappear and the people he has been reaching may not be so eager to vote lockstep with Unity.

Anonymous said...

Petition, Petition, Petition

Anonymous said...

Any word on that petition? if anybody can write a good one, it is the folks at MORE!!! We need this right now. The time is right for action before Mulgrew blows it yet again. i am sure the readers of this blog can get tons of folks to sign it. Let's get this going!

James Eterno said...

Working on trying to do something my friends from across the state would support.

Anonymous said...

I thought the ESSA laws *did* still mandate testing. Are you sure about this? Can you cite a source? I trust you, but. . .

James Eterno said...

Student test results no longer have to be part of teacher evaluations in current ESSA law. That is fairly clear.

Anonymous said...

Don't give up the fight at DA.