Many of us who work in public education feel a strong sense of gloom and doom because of what is happening in the schools and in the country overall these days. The public, and the teachers in particular, have been completely shut out of so called school reform, which in reality is a corporate attempt to blame teachers for any educational failure. The reformers want to privatize our schools.
Teachers go to work each day and live a nightmare of totally unrealistic demands being placed on us. A great number of my colleagues have concluded that the situation is only going to get worse.
The big decisions on the direction of the school system for the next four years in New York City will be made very soon by a new mayor. Unless something drastic happens in the next few days, that person will be Bill de Blasio, the current Public Advocate.
There are plenty of reasons to be pessimistic. Just look at some of the names being bandied about as the next potential Chancellor. Carmen Farina or Andres Alonzo are not names that are going to give beleaguered educators and activists much room for hope. However, maybe this letter to Mayor Michael Bloomberg opposing some of Bloomberg's eleventh hour co-locations is cause for a little optimism.
Letter From Public Advocate Bill de Blasio on Co-locations
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg City Hall
New York, NY 10007
Chancellor Dennis Walcott Tweed Courthouse
52 Chambers Street
New York, NY 10007
Dear Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Walcott,
I am unsettled by your Administration's eleventh-hour efforts to push through significant changes to our City's schools that will result in negative consequences for some of our most vulnerable students.
As has been evident time and again, the Department of Education's co-location processes fall short of meeting the needs of parents and children.
The Department has repeatedly pushed through policies that carry significant impacts on communities across the city without sound educational plans for their long- term success. Many of the proposals being discussed at tonight's Panel for Educational Policy meeting regrettably continue that pattern, particularly in their failure to take into account overcrowding or loss of District 75 seats for our city's most vulnerable children.
While I write today to reiterate my call for a moratorium on co-locations and closures, I would like to draw attention to two proposals that exemplify the concerns of parents from around the five boroughs. By the Department's own calculations, the proposal to co-locate American Dream Charter School with P.S. 30 Wilton will cause the X030 building to reach 135 percent capacity when both schools are fully phased in during SY16/17. This will mean significant overcrowding for students. In a second proposal, the expansion of Success Academy Charter School (Harlem 4) with P.S. 149 Sojourner Truth and P.S. M811 Mickey Mantle School, a District 75 school will be forced to lower its enrollment.
Tonight the Panel for Educational Policy will review over 20 proposals, many of them which exemplify this type of poor educational planning. For that reason, I call on PEP members to vote against the proposals before them until we can put in place a more thorough and inclusive process.
Sincerely,
Bill de Blasio
Public Advocate for the City of New York
CC: Members of the Panel for Educational Policy
There is a huge opening on the more progressive side of the political spectrum that de Blasio ran through to win the Democratic primary for mayor. Is it possible he will govern that way?
I would be much more hopeful if our union, the United Federation of Teachers, wasn't up to its neck in support for Common Core as well as rating teachers based on student test scores (junk science) and the Danielson Framework.
Friday, October 25, 2013
Saturday, October 19, 2013
SCHOOL COMMUNITY RALLIES TO STOP CO-LOCATION AT MARTIN VAN BUREN HIGH SCHOOL
In case you were wondering what I did after school on Friday, I raced on over to Martin Van Buren to attend their rally to stop the co-location of a new school in their building. Co-location is the beginning of the end in many cases as space is lost, enrollments decline and the budget is cut which starts the death spiral.
Hopefully the new mayor will have something to say about this in January.
Students did a great job of mobilizing at Van Buren. Great turnout particularly considering it was a Friday afternoon.
Hopefully the new mayor will have something to say about this in January.
 |
| Van Buren Chapter Leader on the left along with brothers Assemblyman David Weprin and Councilman Mark Weprin with Senator Tony Avella in the middle speaking |
Students did a great job of mobilizing at Van Buren. Great turnout particularly considering it was a Friday afternoon.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
ANNENBERG INSTITUTE FINDS DOE PUTS MANY AT RISK KIDS IN SO CALLED STRUGGLING SCHOOLS
The Annenberg Institute for Education Reform released a study last week showing that the New York City Department of Education disproportionately places Over the Counter students in what they call struggling schools. This is about as surprising to people who work in high schools as saying that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
Over the Counter students are those who register after the regular application and admission process has been completed. These pupils tend to be, but are not always, more at risk of not completing a diploma in four years (for example: English Language Learners, Special Needs pupils, Students with Interrupted Formal Educations [they didn't attend school in their home countries], pupils who are overage and behind in credits, pupils living in poverty, young people who had been incarcerated, homeless, truants).
The report shows Columbus HS and Jamaica HS led the city's medium size high schools in Over the Counter Admissions from 2008-2011. DUH!
I guess it's always nice to have some data to back up what everyone already knows: Our schools were set up to fail because we were given more at risk students to educate while at the same time supports were cut.
This is the unintended consequence of school choice. When savvy students and parents select their schools, they fill up the prized schools quickly. Everyone else is relegated to the schools that are left.
These remaining schools have a difficult time coping with so many at risk kids and then word spreads to avoid the school which then leads fewer students admitted through the regular process and more Over the Counter Admissions with no extra supports. This starts the downward spiral until the schools are eventually deemed failures and closed.
New schools that replace the old schools tend to take fewer of the Over the Counter kids so they have an advantage. Over the Counter students go en masse to the next school targeted for closure until finally there will be no place to hide them.
Over the Counter students are those who register after the regular application and admission process has been completed. These pupils tend to be, but are not always, more at risk of not completing a diploma in four years (for example: English Language Learners, Special Needs pupils, Students with Interrupted Formal Educations [they didn't attend school in their home countries], pupils who are overage and behind in credits, pupils living in poverty, young people who had been incarcerated, homeless, truants).
The report shows Columbus HS and Jamaica HS led the city's medium size high schools in Over the Counter Admissions from 2008-2011. DUH!
I guess it's always nice to have some data to back up what everyone already knows: Our schools were set up to fail because we were given more at risk students to educate while at the same time supports were cut.
This is the unintended consequence of school choice. When savvy students and parents select their schools, they fill up the prized schools quickly. Everyone else is relegated to the schools that are left.
These remaining schools have a difficult time coping with so many at risk kids and then word spreads to avoid the school which then leads fewer students admitted through the regular process and more Over the Counter Admissions with no extra supports. This starts the downward spiral until the schools are eventually deemed failures and closed.
New schools that replace the old schools tend to take fewer of the Over the Counter kids so they have an advantage. Over the Counter students go en masse to the next school targeted for closure until finally there will be no place to hide them.
Sunday, October 13, 2013
WHERE'S THE SCIENCE BACKING ANY OF THE COMMON CORE-DANIELSON NONSENSE?
UFT President Michael Mulgrew constantly tells us we must be on the same side as the parents. I agree but when it comes to Common Core, it looks as though the parents are in a different place than our president.
It is kind of sad that our President doesn't recognize people like me and other like minded Delegates much because if he opened up the forum a little, an exchange of ideas would be helpful for our union.
Robert's Rules say people have to rise to claim the floor in a parliamentary style meeting but UFT tradition has always been to raise one's voting card and wait to be recognized by the chair at Delegate Assembly meetings. Former UFT President Randi Weingarten used to make a minor showing about democratic protocol but current President Michael Mulgrew generally believes in one sided debate, an oxymoron if ever there was one.
Since his proposal on Common Core testing last week was much more controversial than he expected, he couldn't get away with his usual routine of calling on one or two speakers in favor of his policy and then having someone ask that debate be closed. The usual policy on debate is a total violation of Robert's Rules.
I will concede that he actually called on two speakers who opposed his resolution last Wednesday to call for a moratorium on the results of high stakes results being attached to Common Core tests. Those two speakers made excellent points on why we need more than just a delay in implementing high stakes results for Common Core tests.
However, President Mulgrew never called on anyone at all on my side of the hall where most of the people who form the opposition to Unity Caucus sit.
I had my card raised at the DA. I wanted to talk about on why Common Core needs to be thrown out now. I attempted to speak as a parent of a four year old and as a teacher. This is what I would have said.
I oppose this resolution because it treats a symptom of a disease that is using tests for high stakes decisions while the unproven Common Core and Danielson framework disease rage on.
The excellent journalist Valerie Strauss had a piece on Common Core and young children back in January on her blog in the Washington Post that was written by Edward Miller and Nancy Carlsson-Paige, two early childhood experts. The frightening part stated that Common Core for young kids may truly be detrimental to child development. This is from the Strauss blog:
The Joint Statement of Early Childhood Health and Education Professionals on the Common Core Standards Initiative was signed by educators, pediatricians, developmental psychologists, and researchers, including many of the most prominent members of those fields.
Their statement reads in part:
We have grave concerns about the core standards for young children...The proposed standards conflict with compelling new research in cognitive science, neuroscience, child development, and early childhood education about how young children learn, what they need to learn and how best to teach them in kindergarten and the early grades....
No research to support the Common Core Standards for young children and plenty of leading pediatricians and human development experts against it.
The Joint Statement further states, "There is little evidence that standards for young children lead to later success. The research is inconclusive; many countries with top-performing high-school students provide rich play-based, nonacademic experiences, not standardized instruction-up to age six or seven.
There is a lack of research at the upper grade levels too but Common Core looks highly inappropriate for young kids. We need more than a delay on using the results of tests that shouldn't be administered at all.
Even if this resolution for a delay in using the results of Common Core tests for high stakes decisions carried and was turned into law, teachers would then be evaluated totally on the Danielson framework for teaching.
Where is the research showing that this is the best way to evaluate teachers? If one goes to the Danielson website, there is one study in support of Danielson. Guess who sponsored it? The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I would trust that study about as much as I trust Michael Bloomberg or Dennis Walcott to do the right thing for public schools.
Danielson and Common Core have thin research behind them at best and yet we are staking our careers and our children's futures on both so we can get some Race to the Top peanuts. We should be opposing any system imposed on our kids and ourselves that is not fully research based and field tested.
A moratorium on high stakes decisions being made on flawed high stakes tests does not go nearly far enough.
I never had the chance to make those points as the president will not even look in my direction at the DA.
Overall, this was a very tough week for supporters of the Common Core Standards such as State Education Commissioner John King and NEA as well as AFT-NYSUT-UFT. Parents are in open rebellion as the now famous video in Poughkeepsie shows.
The Daily News even reported on the craziness of administering Common Core tests to very young children.
While my card gently weeps at the DA (sorry Beatles fans), the public tide is turning against Common Core and Commissioner John King.
Mulgrew says we have to stick with the parents but will he join their opposition to Common Core?
It is kind of sad that our President doesn't recognize people like me and other like minded Delegates much because if he opened up the forum a little, an exchange of ideas would be helpful for our union.
Robert's Rules say people have to rise to claim the floor in a parliamentary style meeting but UFT tradition has always been to raise one's voting card and wait to be recognized by the chair at Delegate Assembly meetings. Former UFT President Randi Weingarten used to make a minor showing about democratic protocol but current President Michael Mulgrew generally believes in one sided debate, an oxymoron if ever there was one.
Since his proposal on Common Core testing last week was much more controversial than he expected, he couldn't get away with his usual routine of calling on one or two speakers in favor of his policy and then having someone ask that debate be closed. The usual policy on debate is a total violation of Robert's Rules.
I will concede that he actually called on two speakers who opposed his resolution last Wednesday to call for a moratorium on the results of high stakes results being attached to Common Core tests. Those two speakers made excellent points on why we need more than just a delay in implementing high stakes results for Common Core tests.
However, President Mulgrew never called on anyone at all on my side of the hall where most of the people who form the opposition to Unity Caucus sit.
I had my card raised at the DA. I wanted to talk about on why Common Core needs to be thrown out now. I attempted to speak as a parent of a four year old and as a teacher. This is what I would have said.
I oppose this resolution because it treats a symptom of a disease that is using tests for high stakes decisions while the unproven Common Core and Danielson framework disease rage on.
The excellent journalist Valerie Strauss had a piece on Common Core and young children back in January on her blog in the Washington Post that was written by Edward Miller and Nancy Carlsson-Paige, two early childhood experts. The frightening part stated that Common Core for young kids may truly be detrimental to child development. This is from the Strauss blog:
The Joint Statement of Early Childhood Health and Education Professionals on the Common Core Standards Initiative was signed by educators, pediatricians, developmental psychologists, and researchers, including many of the most prominent members of those fields.
Their statement reads in part:
We have grave concerns about the core standards for young children...The proposed standards conflict with compelling new research in cognitive science, neuroscience, child development, and early childhood education about how young children learn, what they need to learn and how best to teach them in kindergarten and the early grades....
No research to support the Common Core Standards for young children and plenty of leading pediatricians and human development experts against it.
The Joint Statement further states, "There is little evidence that standards for young children lead to later success. The research is inconclusive; many countries with top-performing high-school students provide rich play-based, nonacademic experiences, not standardized instruction-up to age six or seven.
There is a lack of research at the upper grade levels too but Common Core looks highly inappropriate for young kids. We need more than a delay on using the results of tests that shouldn't be administered at all.
Even if this resolution for a delay in using the results of Common Core tests for high stakes decisions carried and was turned into law, teachers would then be evaluated totally on the Danielson framework for teaching.
Where is the research showing that this is the best way to evaluate teachers? If one goes to the Danielson website, there is one study in support of Danielson. Guess who sponsored it? The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. I would trust that study about as much as I trust Michael Bloomberg or Dennis Walcott to do the right thing for public schools.
Danielson and Common Core have thin research behind them at best and yet we are staking our careers and our children's futures on both so we can get some Race to the Top peanuts. We should be opposing any system imposed on our kids and ourselves that is not fully research based and field tested.
A moratorium on high stakes decisions being made on flawed high stakes tests does not go nearly far enough.
I never had the chance to make those points as the president will not even look in my direction at the DA.
Overall, this was a very tough week for supporters of the Common Core Standards such as State Education Commissioner John King and NEA as well as AFT-NYSUT-UFT. Parents are in open rebellion as the now famous video in Poughkeepsie shows.
The Daily News even reported on the craziness of administering Common Core tests to very young children.
While my card gently weeps at the DA (sorry Beatles fans), the public tide is turning against Common Core and Commissioner John King.
Mulgrew says we have to stick with the parents but will he join their opposition to Common Core?
Thursday, October 10, 2013
MORE COMES OF AGE AT DA WITH PROTEST AND STRONG SHOWING AS UNITY-NEW ACTION PASS MEANINGLESS RESOLUTION ON TESTING
RESOLUTION TO POSTPONE HIGH STAKES DECISIONS ON COMMON CORE TESTS
UFT President Michael Mulgrew and his ruling Unity-New Action majority tried to have it both ways at last night's UFT Delegate Assembly. Mulgrew and Staff Director Leroy Barr pushed a resolution to call for a moratorium on attaching high stakes to Common Core tests until we have curriculum and other supports in all schools. However, Barr and Mulgrew repeatedly emphasized the UFT's support for the Common Core State Standards and the high stakes tests for teachers and students that are attached to the standards.This basically vacuous resolution to delay using tests to make high stakes decisions was motivated by President Mulgrew in his report and then by Staff Director Barr. Their main argument is that we support Common Core and high stakes testing for students and teachers but there needs to be a moratorium in making the tests count for important decisions, such as rating teachers and students, until we have the proper materials in every school because it is unfair to students when some schools have new curriculum while others do not.
These points in favor of a delay, while having some merit, were easily refuted by two opposition speakers because the resolution does not address the main disease, only one symptom. First, Marjorie Stamberg tried to offer a substitute resolution but was denied by President Mulgrew, who repeatedly and rudely cut her off while she was speaking. Marjorie persevered and the independent Delegate told the Delegates how poverty is the problem and the Common Core, as well as the tests attached to it, are the tools of corporations that are attempting to privatize education and break the unions.
Marjorie was followed by a Unity speaker who said something about how this resolution was part of solutions driven unionism and then Vincent Wojsnis from the Movement of Rank and File Educators rose from the room on the 19th floor (Delegate meetings are held on the 2nd floor of UFT HQ while overflow Delegates and visitors can watch on video from a room on the 19th floor) to shoot down the resolution.
Vincent's main argument is that the whole evaluation system is flawed. He pointed out to "Brother Barr" that he taught for thirteen years without the Common Core and did just fine. He then asked the UFT why their resolution did not go far enough to oppose the entire teacher evaluation system based on high stakes testing and Common Core. He closed by stating that the Movement of Rank and File Educators (MORE) had a petition for a moratorium on the whole evaluation system. He received enthusiastic applause from more than a few Delegates.
His speech was followed by a Unity Delegate moving to close debate. The resolution carried in my opinion only because members of the ruling Unity Caucus sign a paper saying they will support the decisions of the caucus in union and public forums (the so called Unity loyalty oath). However, there was little enthusiasm for the resolution and some real dissent in the hall.
The positions of the two parties within the UFT were crystal clear at the DA: Unity-New Action support Common Core State Standards and the new teacher evaluation system so long as we have proper materials. MORE and the vast majority of the UFT members oppose Common Core, high stakes testing, Danielson observations and the entire new evaluation system and want teachers to be evaluated based on a solid research backed system that is voted on by teachers.
It is also worth noting that President Mulgrew didn't call on anyone in the section to his left during the discussion on evaluations, even though several Delegates wearing red MORE t-shirts were raising their cards to speak. Since it was breast cancer awareness day and the UFT was encouraging people to wear pink, Mulgrew would only call on Delegates wearing pink. Some MORE Delegates wore pink hats to get around his silly limit to democracy since MORE people were decked out in red to show solidarity and protest the entire high stakes testing based evaluation system before the DA.
Unity-New Action may have won the vote but Unity needed their party discipline to have their way. On the other hand, MORE was organizing multiple Delegates who now want to distribute MORE literature to their schools. MORE gained a great deal yesterday.
 |
Vincent Wojsnis, Mike Shirtzer and many MORE members and supporters protest against unfair teacher evaluation system at DA |
(For an example on what the UFT should be doing, check out this link to an upstate forum where the movement against high stakes testing is growing among teachers, parents and administrators.)
Onward to the rest of the DA:
PRESIDENT'S REPORT
I came in a little late (I joined the MORE protest out front) but found that the attendance was a bit light for the first meeting of the year. President Michael Mulgrew was talking about reorganization grievances and the importance of school safety committees when I arrived.
Mayor's Race
Mulgrew said we can't get complacent when we look at the polls showing de Blasio way ahead. A Lhota election would mean the continuation of Bloomberg's education policies. Phone banks will be open starting on October 15. We must elect de Blasio.
National Politics
A group in DC is now saying we want the government to default. This will have a direct effect on us if we default and go into recession right when contract negotiations are starting. We need the economy not to crash. Mulgrew wants to see a face saving solution.
Referendum on Casino Gambling
There is a referendum on the November 8 to open up 7 new casinos in NYS (outside of NYC) that the UFT will urge members to support. 80% of the profits are supposed to go to education.
NYC Department of Education News
Parents are concerned about what it means to be a Level 1 or Level 2 student. The Chancellor said mailing out new curriculum to schools was the largest single mailing in DOE history. DOE is getting worse by the day.
Lesson Plan Grievance
There is a Union Initiated grievance on lesson plans. DOE is saying they are not mandating lesson plans but suggesting ideas. Mulgrew asked for Delegates who were compelled to write lesson plans in a certain format to immediately get documentation to the Grievance Director. The President said that DOE is improperly using the Danielson Framework as the lesson plan can only be viewed in the context of the lesson. He also wants people to get information to the Grievance Director on curriculum maps, units of study and teachers being forced to design rubrics.
Evaluation System
We can't get two principals to agree on what the evaluation system should mean. We need better working conditions and support. Teachers are quitting at a faster rate than ever before. Even after the mayor's election, it will take a couple of months to figure out which way the system will go. Mulgrew acknowledged the evaluation system is not going well now. This is a pivotal time in our history. He hopes the end of the Bloomberg era will be the time when we take back our school system.
Mulgrew's Trip to Ireland
The president reported that he was sent by the AFT to Ireland where some are blaming the depression over there on schools and discussions are going there like we had here five years ago with a non educator in charge of education.
Evaluation Resolution
Mulgrew improperly motivated the resolution on evaluations from the chair. He said he was giving information and not motivating it. We are only against tests when schools are not treated fairly. The situation when some schools have curriculum aligned to the new standards but most do not is unfair so tests should not be attached to high stakes decisions for students and teachers at this time.
Co-Locations
Panel for Educational Policy is trying to push through as many charter co-locations as they can before Bloomberg leaves at the end of the year. We will have a new PEP in January.
Fact Finding
There will be one more hearing day in November. DOE wants one more hearing after that. The report will come back and then we will go into negotiations. Mayor tried to change our health care but thanks to Arthur Pepper, he cannot touch our health care.
STAFF DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Leroy Barr reported that the Making Strides against Breast Cancer Walk will be on October 20. Teacher Union Day will be on November 3 where we will celebrate the 1960 strike. Para Luncheon will be on March 15, 2014.
QUESTION PERIOD
Question: Joe Lhota is attacking UFT. What do we do?
Mulgrew Answer: Elect Bill de Blasio mayor.
Question: School already has no money in its budget so how can school function properly?
Answer: Principal needs to know how to manage budget. The way the DOE allocates money by charging fees to use a public school while letting charter schools operate rent free is wrong. Work with the District Representative on this.
Answer even though there wasn't a question on special education: Principals and networks are calling UFT saying we are sending in too many special education complaints. We will take them to court if they don't comply.
Question: How do we want to change the evaluation system in the next contract?
Answer: In negotiations, we want Measures of Student Learning that are project based like portfolios to show students are growing. We will try to negotiate more options for MOSL into the next contract.
Question: Teachers being told to write goals for every student. What to do?
Answer: Get information to UFT Grievance Director.
NEW MOTION PERIOD
A motion was raised by the UFT political director to support the casino referendum. It carried and was added to the agenda where it carried. Nobody spoke against although some Delegates voted against it.
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
Political endorsements: Letitia James for Public Advocate (finally), Melinda Katz for Queens Borough President, Eric Adams for Brooklyn borough President, and for City Council Ben Kallos, Helen Rosenthal and Paul Vallone. All carried easily.
The other items were the casino resolution, the resolution on delaying the high stakes consequences for tests and finally there was another one on testing. Time ran out after these resolutions passed and the meeting was adjourned.
For all of the Delegates who don't show up, MORE, particularly some of the younger people, were a real presence at the DA today. Come out and show support.
Wednesday, October 09, 2013
UFT PRAISES COMMON CORE; CALLS FOR MORITORIUM ON JUDGING TEACHERS, SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS ON TESTS WHILE SAYING NOTHING ABOUT PUNITIVE DANIELSON OBSERVATIONS
The resolution below passed at the UFT Executive Board on Monday night. To my eyes, it does not go nearly far enough to stop the madness that is occurring in our schools across the country, in general, and specifically in New York State and New York City.
A moratorium on the high stakes test part of the new teacher evaluation system is a limited start but the UFT resolution says nothing about the punitive, required, multiple "gotcha" Danielson observations that are part of the new "Advance" teacher evaluation system and the UFT still praises the unproven Common Core Standards.
An immediate repeal of the whole evaluation system is what the UFT should be calling for along with further research to see if Common Core works.
Look at what is happening up in Syracuse where 40% of the teachers were rated developing or ineffective last year. It could happen here in NYC too. The evaluation system called Advance must be put into full retreat and die if we are to start to win our professional dignity back.
A moratorium on the high stakes test part of the new teacher evaluation system is a limited start but the UFT resolution says nothing about the punitive, required, multiple "gotcha" Danielson observations that are part of the new "Advance" teacher evaluation system and the UFT still praises the unproven Common Core Standards.
An immediate repeal of the whole evaluation system is what the UFT should be calling for along with further research to see if Common Core works.
Look at what is happening up in Syracuse where 40% of the teachers were rated developing or ineffective last year. It could happen here in NYC too. The evaluation system called Advance must be put into full retreat and die if we are to start to win our professional dignity back.
WHEREAS the United Federation of Teachers has since its founding been dedicated to creating
conditions in New York City pubic schools that enhance learning and help every child to achieve; and
WHEREAS the UFT strongly supports the Common Core Learning Standards as a means toward
ensuring that children in the city and across the country learn the critical thinking skills necessary for success in today’s competitive world; and '
WHEREAS the UFT has always held that teachers must be given adequate resources and professional development for the transition to the Common Core standards to succeed; and
WHEREAS New York in the spring of 2013 administered new tests based on the Common Core before teachers and schools had even received currìcula aligned to the new standards, with the result that student scores plunged in New York City and across the state; and
WHEREAS five weeks into the 2013-14 school year, many schools across New York City had still not received their new curricula aligned to the Common Core or had received them late, which is particularly problematic considering that the next round of state tests is to occur within a matter of months, in spring 2014; and
WHEREAS it is harmful and unfair to children to give them high-stakes tests on material and skills which their schools have not had adequate time or resources to teach; and
WHEREAS in New York City in particular a students scores on these tests can have life-changing
consequences, including possibly determining whether the student is promoted to the next grade; and
WHEREAS in addition to the consequences for students, state tests count for 20 percent of a teacher's year-end performance rating under the new teacher evaluation and development system that was established by order of the state education commissioner this year; and
WHEREAS the UFT continues to support having an evaluation system that bases a teacher's rating on multiple measures, rather than solely on a principals opinion; and that gives teachers a professional voice in their schools; and
WHEREAS the UFT nevertheless holds that attaching high-stakes consequences to the new state exams at this time would be reckless and damaging to our public schools in light of the failure of the city to ensure that schools and teachers received adequate resources and professional development prior to the start of this school year; and
WHEREAS, the UFT recognizes that the high stakes attached to New York State tests are a result of
federal and state education laws as well as New York City Department of Education policy; therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the UFT calls for a moratorium on attaching high-stakes consequences to state tests until representatives of all interested parties - including parents and educators - have worked with members of Congress, the state Legislature, the state Commissioner of Education, the Board of Regents and the New York City Panel for Educational Policy to carefully examine how well the new curricula, professional development and tests align to the Common Core standards; and be it further
RESOLVED, that this moratorium will allow the state to continue administering the tests but will require that both the state and city pause in attaching to the test results any high-stakes consequences for students, teachers or schools until all stakeholders are assured that the system for implementing
Common Core standards is working as it should to give our children the world-class education they deserve.
Sunday, October 06, 2013
NO TALE OF TWO DE BLASIOS
Reality Based Educator is reporting that Bill de Blasio, the overwhelming favorite to be the next mayor of New York City, has been meeting with the business and media titans of the city. Should we be alarmed that de Blasio is just another Democratic politician who leans to the left during an election campaign and then leaves working people behind after winning?
The amazing Diane Ravitch, leader of the fight for public education and a de Blasio supporter, doesn't seem to think we should be that concerned. She published on her blog de Blasio's speech to the business elite.
I understand the skepticism of many teachers and other supporters of public education. Public school teachers have been beaten down for a long time and haven't had too many victories in the last twenty years.
We've heard the politicians talk and talk about supporting the public schools but our working conditions (student learning conditions) have deteriorated steadily. We want to think de Blasio will turn the situation around but we have been fooled in the past.
The most extreme example is Vincent Gray. Gray ran for mayor of Washington DC against Adrian Fenty in 2010. Gray defeated Fenty. One of the major issues in that campaign was Fenty's schools chancellor, Michelle Rhee, the most high profile public school teacher basher in the country. Rhee came out during the campaign and actually said that Gray wasn't committed to school reform like Fenty was.
She even took the blame for Fenty's loss in this interview published at the Huffington Post. "O'DONNELL: Let me ask you personally because a lot of people say that Mayor Fenty who took on the -- along with you took on -- along with you -- some of the teachers and the union in this that you were part of the reason he lost. What do you think about that?
RHEE: Well, I think without a doubt.
O'DONNELL: right.
RHEE: I just want to be real about this."
What did Gray do when elected? He hired Rhee's deputy Kaya Henderson to basically continue Rhee's policies in DC.
One could argue convincingly that Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton by running to the left of Clinton in the Democratic presidential primaries in 2008. Obama opposed the war in Iraq while Hillary voted for it. On the issue of education, supporters of the public schools were all excited after the 2008 election when educator Linda Darling-Hammond was chosen to lead the education transition team. However that elation was short-lived as Obama named Chicago teacher basher extraordinaire Arne Duncan to be Secretary of Education and it has been five more years of terrible times for the public schools.
After being elected, Gray and Obama stepped on the faces an important part of the Democratic base: public educators. We never made them pay the political price for dismissing our needs. Democratic politicians have correctly figured out that, practically speaking, we have no place to go so they take us for granted. (Sorry but the Green Party and the socialist alternatives are not currently large enough to scare anyone. The Democrats are emulating Republican education policy so going right is not the answer either.)
Will de Blasio turn into another Gray or Obama after election day?
The odds of a sell out will increase significantly if we do nothing and just sit back and wait for de Blasio to do right by the public schools.
His platform calls for universal pre-k and after school programs for all middle school students. These sound like fantastic ideas as does his plan to charge rent for charter schools using city buildings. However, more fundamentally, the school system needs to reverse the nightmarish Bloomberg, Obama, Cuomo, etc... teacher bashing, closing schools agenda. Having us work in a climate of fear where we have to watch our backs consistently does not make us better educators and does nothing for children.
Educational activists need to be proactive in demanding a revamped school system that starts to value educators and views students and schools as more than data points.
Now is the time to attempt to convince de Blasio to appoint a chancellor who supports public education. We need a clean break from the Bloomberg years and the three disastrous chancellors (Klein, Black and Walcott).
The new mayor should hire someone who can put Humpty Dumpty back together again as the system is now almost completely dysfunctional. I would conservatively estimate that the education budget contains billions of dollars of wasteful items that do nothing to improve student outcomes.
The system before Bloomberg was certainly no educational paradise but parts of it actually worked. A new chancellor could build off of that as we move forward. First, he or she needs to clean house at Tweed by moving out the bulk of the lawyers, public relations people and numbers crunchers while moving in some professional educators.
De Blasio is a supporter of mayoral control. He will have eight votes out of thirteen total on the Board of Education, now known as the Panel for Educational Policy. Will he appoint a panel that respects the public or are we going to have to deal with a different group of eight people who come in with rubber stamps and ignore virtually everything the public asks for?
Let's recommend strong public education activists for the PEP. I would start with Class Size Matters leader Leonie Haimson. Mayor de Blasio should also retain Manhattan PEP representative Patrick Sullivan. Mr. Sullivan might actually have an opportunity to shape some policy under a de Blasio mayoralty. I also believe NAACP's Ken Cohen, an education leader from Queens, would make an excellent PEP representative. In addition, the new mayor should seek out for the panel parents who currently have kids in the schools and are independent minded.
These are just a few suggestions. I'm sure people much more knowledgeable than me can come up with others. The point is we cannot sit back and expect the public schools, nearly destroyed under Bloomberg, to magically improve under de Blasio. It's up to us to actively push to make positive change a reality.
The amazing Diane Ravitch, leader of the fight for public education and a de Blasio supporter, doesn't seem to think we should be that concerned. She published on her blog de Blasio's speech to the business elite.
I understand the skepticism of many teachers and other supporters of public education. Public school teachers have been beaten down for a long time and haven't had too many victories in the last twenty years.
We've heard the politicians talk and talk about supporting the public schools but our working conditions (student learning conditions) have deteriorated steadily. We want to think de Blasio will turn the situation around but we have been fooled in the past.
The most extreme example is Vincent Gray. Gray ran for mayor of Washington DC against Adrian Fenty in 2010. Gray defeated Fenty. One of the major issues in that campaign was Fenty's schools chancellor, Michelle Rhee, the most high profile public school teacher basher in the country. Rhee came out during the campaign and actually said that Gray wasn't committed to school reform like Fenty was.
She even took the blame for Fenty's loss in this interview published at the Huffington Post. "O'DONNELL: Let me ask you personally because a lot of people say that Mayor Fenty who took on the -- along with you took on -- along with you -- some of the teachers and the union in this that you were part of the reason he lost. What do you think about that?
RHEE: Well, I think without a doubt.
O'DONNELL: right.
RHEE: I just want to be real about this."
What did Gray do when elected? He hired Rhee's deputy Kaya Henderson to basically continue Rhee's policies in DC.
One could argue convincingly that Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton by running to the left of Clinton in the Democratic presidential primaries in 2008. Obama opposed the war in Iraq while Hillary voted for it. On the issue of education, supporters of the public schools were all excited after the 2008 election when educator Linda Darling-Hammond was chosen to lead the education transition team. However that elation was short-lived as Obama named Chicago teacher basher extraordinaire Arne Duncan to be Secretary of Education and it has been five more years of terrible times for the public schools.
After being elected, Gray and Obama stepped on the faces an important part of the Democratic base: public educators. We never made them pay the political price for dismissing our needs. Democratic politicians have correctly figured out that, practically speaking, we have no place to go so they take us for granted. (Sorry but the Green Party and the socialist alternatives are not currently large enough to scare anyone. The Democrats are emulating Republican education policy so going right is not the answer either.)
Will de Blasio turn into another Gray or Obama after election day?
The odds of a sell out will increase significantly if we do nothing and just sit back and wait for de Blasio to do right by the public schools.
His platform calls for universal pre-k and after school programs for all middle school students. These sound like fantastic ideas as does his plan to charge rent for charter schools using city buildings. However, more fundamentally, the school system needs to reverse the nightmarish Bloomberg, Obama, Cuomo, etc... teacher bashing, closing schools agenda. Having us work in a climate of fear where we have to watch our backs consistently does not make us better educators and does nothing for children.
Educational activists need to be proactive in demanding a revamped school system that starts to value educators and views students and schools as more than data points.
Now is the time to attempt to convince de Blasio to appoint a chancellor who supports public education. We need a clean break from the Bloomberg years and the three disastrous chancellors (Klein, Black and Walcott).
The new mayor should hire someone who can put Humpty Dumpty back together again as the system is now almost completely dysfunctional. I would conservatively estimate that the education budget contains billions of dollars of wasteful items that do nothing to improve student outcomes.
The system before Bloomberg was certainly no educational paradise but parts of it actually worked. A new chancellor could build off of that as we move forward. First, he or she needs to clean house at Tweed by moving out the bulk of the lawyers, public relations people and numbers crunchers while moving in some professional educators.
De Blasio is a supporter of mayoral control. He will have eight votes out of thirteen total on the Board of Education, now known as the Panel for Educational Policy. Will he appoint a panel that respects the public or are we going to have to deal with a different group of eight people who come in with rubber stamps and ignore virtually everything the public asks for?
Let's recommend strong public education activists for the PEP. I would start with Class Size Matters leader Leonie Haimson. Mayor de Blasio should also retain Manhattan PEP representative Patrick Sullivan. Mr. Sullivan might actually have an opportunity to shape some policy under a de Blasio mayoralty. I also believe NAACP's Ken Cohen, an education leader from Queens, would make an excellent PEP representative. In addition, the new mayor should seek out for the panel parents who currently have kids in the schools and are independent minded.
These are just a few suggestions. I'm sure people much more knowledgeable than me can come up with others. The point is we cannot sit back and expect the public schools, nearly destroyed under Bloomberg, to magically improve under de Blasio. It's up to us to actively push to make positive change a reality.
Tuesday, October 01, 2013
TISH JAMES WINS HANDILY
Letitia James easily beat Dan Squadron tonight. Tallies show James garnered 59.4% of the vote while Squadron received 40.6%, with 100% of precincts reporting.
When elected in November (a forgone conclusion since there is no Republican opposition), James will be the first African American woman to hold citywide office in NYC.
Who knows if it will make any difference in our lives, but candidates who took progressive positions on major issues, including education, have now emerged victorious in all three citywide races in the Democratic primaries.
The reactionary NY Post and Daily News along with the elitist NY Times lost with their endorsements for Public Advocate tonight as well as Mayor last month when Bill de Blasio won the Democratic primary outright.
The UFT lost on Mayor and stayed out of the Public Advocate race. They quickly endorsed de Blasio after the primary. Endorsing James now would be kind of meaningless since she has no Republican opponent but hey why not do it anyway.
Many unions including the large and influential 1199 along with groups like NYC Kids PAC, and bloggers such as Reality Based Educator and yes this blog too supported wining candidates for Mayor, Comptroller and Public Advocate. If only we could take all the credit and have some of our policies enacted, that would be really cool.
However, reality will strike in the morning and it will be back to my closing school for yet another difficult day.
We should not take anything for granted in the mayor's race, as the general election is still ahead of us, but it looks like the voters are calling for a completely new direction in city government.
Conservative Democrats took a pounding in the Democratic primaries. We have to do what it takes to make sure the candidates oriented toward change chart a more progressive course in governing if they win in November, particularly when it comes to public education.
When elected in November (a forgone conclusion since there is no Republican opposition), James will be the first African American woman to hold citywide office in NYC.
Who knows if it will make any difference in our lives, but candidates who took progressive positions on major issues, including education, have now emerged victorious in all three citywide races in the Democratic primaries.
The reactionary NY Post and Daily News along with the elitist NY Times lost with their endorsements for Public Advocate tonight as well as Mayor last month when Bill de Blasio won the Democratic primary outright.
The UFT lost on Mayor and stayed out of the Public Advocate race. They quickly endorsed de Blasio after the primary. Endorsing James now would be kind of meaningless since she has no Republican opponent but hey why not do it anyway.
Many unions including the large and influential 1199 along with groups like NYC Kids PAC, and bloggers such as Reality Based Educator and yes this blog too supported wining candidates for Mayor, Comptroller and Public Advocate. If only we could take all the credit and have some of our policies enacted, that would be really cool.
However, reality will strike in the morning and it will be back to my closing school for yet another difficult day.
We should not take anything for granted in the mayor's race, as the general election is still ahead of us, but it looks like the voters are calling for a completely new direction in city government.
Conservative Democrats took a pounding in the Democratic primaries. We have to do what it takes to make sure the candidates oriented toward change chart a more progressive course in governing if they win in November, particularly when it comes to public education.
Monday, September 30, 2013
VOTE FOR LETITIA JAMES IN TUESDAY'S RUNOFF (My View Only)
Get out the Vote for Tish James on Tuesday in the Democratic Runoff!
Letitia James fought the mayor's reprehensible school closing policies; she deserves our support.
Note this is my view only along with my wife and most of the family but not necessarily the position of ICE, Jeff Kaufman, MORE or anyone else.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
UFT-DOE FACT FINDING HEARINGS CONTINUE
We kind of figured the fact finders recommending a settlement for the UFT contract might try to avoid Mayor Bloomberg. This piece from the September 26 NY Teacher (official newspaper of the UFT) confirms our thinking. This is what we learn from NY Teacher:
The UFT has its last scheduled fact-finding hearing for a new contract on Nov. 4. After the final hearing, both the union and the Department of Education will have an opportunity to submit post-hearing briefs.
After the submission of post-hearing briefs, the next step will be for the fact-finding panel to render a nonbinding recommendation designed to help the union and the DOE craft a final settlement. There is no timetable for when the panel will issue its recommendation.
Translation: The process will be left for the new mayor to figure out.
This should be a positive development but since Bloomberg has moved these negotiations, as well as the overall atmosphere in the schools, in such an anti union direction, do not expect much from the fact finders to win our dignity back.
I tend to agree with the Assailed Teacher that eliminating the horrific new teacher evaluation system and restoring the rights we forfeited in the 2005 contract (ability to grieve file letters, preferred placement rights for UFT members when a school is closed, seniority and SBO transfers, no teacher hall, cafeteria or potty patrols, stronger due process rights) should be significant contract priorities.
Here is most of the Assailed Teacher's commentary on our last post:
To be honest, and I don't think I am alone here, I would forgo retroactive pay for a declawing of this evaluation system (as Anonymous said above at 5:49pm, the evaluation is a state mandate and needs to be repealed via the state, so a declawing is the best we can hope for) if not a total opting out of it for NYC. Let King threaten to withhold money like he did earlier this year. It would come back on him and Cuomo more than the UFT. On top of this, we would need a better 3020-a process (including reassignments and investigations), the right to grieve letters in the file and an anti-bullying clause that protects us from Tweedy and Leadership Academy administrators. For all of this, and some more things I can't think of, I would forgo retroactive pay.
Unfortunately for teachers in the schools, the union leadership is still touting the new evaluations and the 2005 contract as wins. They have this narrowed down to the money which we also learn from the NY Teacher:
The dispute pivots largely on the question of pattern bargaining. The UFT’s position is that its members are entitled to the same raises other city workers have received. The mayor contends that the city cannot afford to follow the pattern.
However, the pattern is 4% + 4% and no givebacks.
Do you consider the teacher evaluation system a gain or a giveback?
The UFT has its last scheduled fact-finding hearing for a new contract on Nov. 4. After the final hearing, both the union and the Department of Education will have an opportunity to submit post-hearing briefs.
After the submission of post-hearing briefs, the next step will be for the fact-finding panel to render a nonbinding recommendation designed to help the union and the DOE craft a final settlement. There is no timetable for when the panel will issue its recommendation.
Translation: The process will be left for the new mayor to figure out.
This should be a positive development but since Bloomberg has moved these negotiations, as well as the overall atmosphere in the schools, in such an anti union direction, do not expect much from the fact finders to win our dignity back.
I tend to agree with the Assailed Teacher that eliminating the horrific new teacher evaluation system and restoring the rights we forfeited in the 2005 contract (ability to grieve file letters, preferred placement rights for UFT members when a school is closed, seniority and SBO transfers, no teacher hall, cafeteria or potty patrols, stronger due process rights) should be significant contract priorities.
Here is most of the Assailed Teacher's commentary on our last post:
To be honest, and I don't think I am alone here, I would forgo retroactive pay for a declawing of this evaluation system (as Anonymous said above at 5:49pm, the evaluation is a state mandate and needs to be repealed via the state, so a declawing is the best we can hope for) if not a total opting out of it for NYC. Let King threaten to withhold money like he did earlier this year. It would come back on him and Cuomo more than the UFT. On top of this, we would need a better 3020-a process (including reassignments and investigations), the right to grieve letters in the file and an anti-bullying clause that protects us from Tweedy and Leadership Academy administrators. For all of this, and some more things I can't think of, I would forgo retroactive pay.
Unfortunately for teachers in the schools, the union leadership is still touting the new evaluations and the 2005 contract as wins. They have this narrowed down to the money which we also learn from the NY Teacher:
The dispute pivots largely on the question of pattern bargaining. The UFT’s position is that its members are entitled to the same raises other city workers have received. The mayor contends that the city cannot afford to follow the pattern.
However, the pattern is 4% + 4% and no givebacks.
Do you consider the teacher evaluation system a gain or a giveback?
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
CITY OWES TEACHERS A FORTUNE IN NEXT CONTRACT
In the last day both NYC Educator and Reality Based Educator have posted material on the long ago expired UFT contract. The teachers' contract ended on October 31, 2009 and the last raise for teachers and other UFT members was on May 19, 2008 ( yearly steps, education increments and longevity steps are not raises). New York City teachers have been working without a contract for almost four years.
The Triborough Amendment to the Taylor Law keeps the old contract in effect until we have a new one but in June the working conditions for the new contract were basically set by State Education Commissioner John King's arbitration on teacher evaluations. This fall we are discovering that those conditions are not very pleasant. No teacher I have talked to is pleased with the new evaluations.
In my school and in emails, the two questions I am constantly asked are:
The two questions are of course linked and so are the answers.
Based on nothing but UFT President Michael Mulgrew's comments at recent meetings and being an outsider close enough to the inside to have some knowledge of how the process works, I think there are a few reasonable prognostications that can be made as to what will happen next year when there is a new mayor.
If the red baiting campaign against Democrat Bill de Blasio succeeds (as it does in UFT elections) and de Blasio loses, Republican Mayor Joe Lhota would almost certainly continue the war on the UFT and there might be a disastrous ending.
However, if de Blasio wins, the contract picture should revert to a more traditional model rather quickly. Unfortunately for working people, so much damage has been done over the last few years that the traditional center of gravity has moved in such an anti-union direction that it could be difficult to move it back in a meaningful way.
I predict the UFT contract will be settled sooner rather than later in a de Blasio administration. The UFT went to non binding fact finding arbitration with the Public Employees Relations Board a while back. One of the arbitrators was picked by the UFT, one was selected by the city and the third was chosen by the first two as the neutral arbitrator. Each side usually will win something in arbitration in order to justify the process.
If past experience holds, the arbitrators will contact both parties and ask them what they can live with in the context of what is on the negotiating table. They would like to get everyone to accept their report. Knowing that Bloomberg wants to crush the union once and for all, it is difficult to imagine the current mayor signing off on anything.
However, there are seasoned veterans who work at the city Office of Labor Relations who have positive, longstanding relationships with the unions. Therefore, if Bill de Blasio wins the election in November, he will more than likely sign off on what the arbitrators come up with and that will form the basis of a settlement.
As for what will be in that agreement, it is somewhat predictable. As NYC Educator quite correctly points out, our contract has traditionally been settled through pattern bargaining. One municipal labor union agrees to a contract and that sets a pattern for a salary increase that all of the other municipal unions then must adhere to. If a union wants an increase larger than the pattern, then they have to give up something in order to get more money. The UFT did this in 2002 and 2005 by agreeing to work more time in exchange for salary increases above the patterns set by District Council 37.
The UFT is now two contracts behind because in 2008, DC 37 settled on a two year contract for a 4% salary increase in year one and another 4% raise in year two with no givebacks at all in either year. They set a fairly decent pattern considering this was in the midst of a financial crisis but also it was during the period when Bloomberg was figuring out how to run for a third term so he wanted union silence. That contract has long since expired so DC 37 and most of the other city unions are only one contract behind. We are two back.
In 2009, right around the time when Mulgrew took over the UFT presidency, the union was agreeing to support an extension of mayoral control of the schools in legislation in Albany. Back then, just about everyone thought that by taking a dive on mayoral control, which was up for renewal that summer and actually briefly expired, it meant that it was just a matter of time before teachers would get the two 4% increases that most of the other city unions received. Bloomberg would have none of it and instead decided to go to war with the UFT when he won a renewal of his school dictatorship. It is a war he has essentially been winning.
He denied UFT members the salary increases that are owed to us based on decades worth of precedent and simultaneously the teacher unions in the state were persuaded to compete for federal Race to the Top funding which eventually led to what is arguably the most horrific concession in UFT history: State Education Commissioner John King's new teacher evaluation system.
Bloomberg was quite correct when he stated that he won just about everything he wanted in the new evaluation system and he didn't have to give up anything to get it. The UFT calling the new system a gain is baffling as I don't know of any teachers who were demanding more observations or having their annual rating based on student test scores or having the burden of proof shift to teachers in termination hearings if people are rated ineffective two years in a row. The imposition of a new evaluation system was originally tied to unions having new contracts but Mulgrew inexplicably agreed to have the two de-coupled.
So, a brief review of the situation today shows that the UFT is four years without a contract and five years without a raise. Meanwhile, UFT leadership has already agreed to what might be the biggest giveback in the history of our union by supporting legislation to allow Commissioner King decide on the new evaluation system. The contract is currently in the hands of three fact finders who will write a report that either side can reject or accept.
Will the fact finders say we should get the 4% + 4% pattern? In some form the answer is probably yes. Will the city agree to it? That is a little more tricky.
Bloomberg's irresponsibility in not settling contracts puts the city in a bind. If they try to do away with pattern bargaining, they will give away their best time honored negotiating strategy of settling with a weak union and then compelling everyone else to follow suit. It is highly unlikely they will reject this strategy unless Joe Lhota wins the election and makes finishing off the UFT and other unions a priority. We are in such bad shape in terms of our fighting ability, i.e. a job action, that Lhota might be able to pull it off should he become the mayor.
However, if the more labor friendly de Blasio wins, expect a different dilemma for the city. If the city says yes and agrees to the 4% + 4% pattern for us, then they will owe us a small fortune. Do the math:
Top salary for city teachers is currently $100,049 (way under what teachers in most suburban districts around here earn).
$100,049
x 1.04 (4%)
$104,050.96
The increase for 2009-2010 is $4001.96.
Now for year two:
$104,050.96
x 1.04 (4%)
$108,212.99
The increase for 2010-2011 is $8,163.99 over what we have now.
Then, the retroactive increase for 2011-2012 is another $8,163.99.
For 2012-13 add another $8,163,99.
Now add up all of the retroactive money and even if there is a contract right away, the city owes teachers on maximum a staggering $28,493.39. If this lingers into 2014, as it almost definitely will, the retroactive price-tag goes to over $30,000 for senior teachers.
The amounts for newer teachers are lower but Bloomberg's irresponsibility will still cost the city a great deal of cash and will be called a budget buster. A friend suggested staggering the payments over three years, as they do with termination pay, to ease the budget pain for the city. In addition, we have to make up a small amount from a prior pension agreement but since that time new teachers have been stuck with an inferior Tier 6 pension, so we have given back even more.
It must be emphasized over and over how we have already conceded in terms of pattern bargaining because the pattern set by DC 37 is 4% + 4% with no givebacks and the new teacher evaluation system is arguably the biggest concession ever made by the UFT and the Legislature passing Tier 6 was not a gain either. The city owes us this money without givebacks. We should demand it and an end to the evaluation system. Yes we would need to go the state and have the law changed. That is what we should mobilize around.
Unfortunately, I forecast that a huge majority of teachers will vote for any contract with retroactive raises in spite of the fact that such a contract will be our only chance to have any say on the new evaluation system, as it will be incorporated into the agreement.
We may also see a loss on merit pay with teachers rated highly effective getting bonuses. In the end our contract will probably be something like the Newark, NJ contract or the New Haven, CT contract.
On a positive note, I am not worried that the UFT will add insult to the evaluation system injury by selling out the Absent Teacher Reserves in a new contract by giving ATR's a time limit to find a new job after they are excessed. This surrender makes no sense. It would have to be agreed to by the State Legislature and other unions would destroy Mulgrew for setting a precedent that could then be applied to them too. (Close the fire houses and make the firefighters find a new house to accept them or face layoff). I also see some minor tweaks in the teacher evaluation system that Mulgrew will trumpet as great gains but will have little impact in the schools.
De Blasio and the UFT may also use the fact finding report as a starter and then expand it to a grand bargain on a much longer contract to settle two rounds of collective bargaining at once. Remember, the fact finders are dealing with our last contract which will have expired in 2011. We will have caught up with everyone else who does not have a contract.
I am not ready to publicly speculate on what could be in a grand bargain for a longer agreement but understand it is a possibility.
As usual I hope the situation will turn out differently. Maybe de Blasio will be the progressive he is accused of being and/or the rank and file teachers will be appalled and not accept the new evaluation system thus forcing a real sea change. It could happen but it is up to us to make that a reality. More likely, we will be thrown some money and we will be resigned to our awful working conditions.
The Triborough Amendment to the Taylor Law keeps the old contract in effect until we have a new one but in June the working conditions for the new contract were basically set by State Education Commissioner John King's arbitration on teacher evaluations. This fall we are discovering that those conditions are not very pleasant. No teacher I have talked to is pleased with the new evaluations.
In my school and in emails, the two questions I am constantly asked are:
- Why did the UFT agree to the awful teacher evaluation system?
- Where is our new contract?
The two questions are of course linked and so are the answers.
Based on nothing but UFT President Michael Mulgrew's comments at recent meetings and being an outsider close enough to the inside to have some knowledge of how the process works, I think there are a few reasonable prognostications that can be made as to what will happen next year when there is a new mayor.
If the red baiting campaign against Democrat Bill de Blasio succeeds (as it does in UFT elections) and de Blasio loses, Republican Mayor Joe Lhota would almost certainly continue the war on the UFT and there might be a disastrous ending.
However, if de Blasio wins, the contract picture should revert to a more traditional model rather quickly. Unfortunately for working people, so much damage has been done over the last few years that the traditional center of gravity has moved in such an anti-union direction that it could be difficult to move it back in a meaningful way.
I predict the UFT contract will be settled sooner rather than later in a de Blasio administration. The UFT went to non binding fact finding arbitration with the Public Employees Relations Board a while back. One of the arbitrators was picked by the UFT, one was selected by the city and the third was chosen by the first two as the neutral arbitrator. Each side usually will win something in arbitration in order to justify the process.
If past experience holds, the arbitrators will contact both parties and ask them what they can live with in the context of what is on the negotiating table. They would like to get everyone to accept their report. Knowing that Bloomberg wants to crush the union once and for all, it is difficult to imagine the current mayor signing off on anything.
However, there are seasoned veterans who work at the city Office of Labor Relations who have positive, longstanding relationships with the unions. Therefore, if Bill de Blasio wins the election in November, he will more than likely sign off on what the arbitrators come up with and that will form the basis of a settlement.
As for what will be in that agreement, it is somewhat predictable. As NYC Educator quite correctly points out, our contract has traditionally been settled through pattern bargaining. One municipal labor union agrees to a contract and that sets a pattern for a salary increase that all of the other municipal unions then must adhere to. If a union wants an increase larger than the pattern, then they have to give up something in order to get more money. The UFT did this in 2002 and 2005 by agreeing to work more time in exchange for salary increases above the patterns set by District Council 37.
The UFT is now two contracts behind because in 2008, DC 37 settled on a two year contract for a 4% salary increase in year one and another 4% raise in year two with no givebacks at all in either year. They set a fairly decent pattern considering this was in the midst of a financial crisis but also it was during the period when Bloomberg was figuring out how to run for a third term so he wanted union silence. That contract has long since expired so DC 37 and most of the other city unions are only one contract behind. We are two back.
In 2009, right around the time when Mulgrew took over the UFT presidency, the union was agreeing to support an extension of mayoral control of the schools in legislation in Albany. Back then, just about everyone thought that by taking a dive on mayoral control, which was up for renewal that summer and actually briefly expired, it meant that it was just a matter of time before teachers would get the two 4% increases that most of the other city unions received. Bloomberg would have none of it and instead decided to go to war with the UFT when he won a renewal of his school dictatorship. It is a war he has essentially been winning.
He denied UFT members the salary increases that are owed to us based on decades worth of precedent and simultaneously the teacher unions in the state were persuaded to compete for federal Race to the Top funding which eventually led to what is arguably the most horrific concession in UFT history: State Education Commissioner John King's new teacher evaluation system.
Bloomberg was quite correct when he stated that he won just about everything he wanted in the new evaluation system and he didn't have to give up anything to get it. The UFT calling the new system a gain is baffling as I don't know of any teachers who were demanding more observations or having their annual rating based on student test scores or having the burden of proof shift to teachers in termination hearings if people are rated ineffective two years in a row. The imposition of a new evaluation system was originally tied to unions having new contracts but Mulgrew inexplicably agreed to have the two de-coupled.
So, a brief review of the situation today shows that the UFT is four years without a contract and five years without a raise. Meanwhile, UFT leadership has already agreed to what might be the biggest giveback in the history of our union by supporting legislation to allow Commissioner King decide on the new evaluation system. The contract is currently in the hands of three fact finders who will write a report that either side can reject or accept.
Will the fact finders say we should get the 4% + 4% pattern? In some form the answer is probably yes. Will the city agree to it? That is a little more tricky.
Bloomberg's irresponsibility in not settling contracts puts the city in a bind. If they try to do away with pattern bargaining, they will give away their best time honored negotiating strategy of settling with a weak union and then compelling everyone else to follow suit. It is highly unlikely they will reject this strategy unless Joe Lhota wins the election and makes finishing off the UFT and other unions a priority. We are in such bad shape in terms of our fighting ability, i.e. a job action, that Lhota might be able to pull it off should he become the mayor.
However, if the more labor friendly de Blasio wins, expect a different dilemma for the city. If the city says yes and agrees to the 4% + 4% pattern for us, then they will owe us a small fortune. Do the math:
Top salary for city teachers is currently $100,049 (way under what teachers in most suburban districts around here earn).
$100,049
x 1.04 (4%)
$104,050.96
The increase for 2009-2010 is $4001.96.
Now for year two:
$104,050.96
x 1.04 (4%)
$108,212.99
The increase for 2010-2011 is $8,163.99 over what we have now.
Then, the retroactive increase for 2011-2012 is another $8,163.99.
For 2012-13 add another $8,163,99.
Now add up all of the retroactive money and even if there is a contract right away, the city owes teachers on maximum a staggering $28,493.39. If this lingers into 2014, as it almost definitely will, the retroactive price-tag goes to over $30,000 for senior teachers.
The amounts for newer teachers are lower but Bloomberg's irresponsibility will still cost the city a great deal of cash and will be called a budget buster. A friend suggested staggering the payments over three years, as they do with termination pay, to ease the budget pain for the city. In addition, we have to make up a small amount from a prior pension agreement but since that time new teachers have been stuck with an inferior Tier 6 pension, so we have given back even more.
It must be emphasized over and over how we have already conceded in terms of pattern bargaining because the pattern set by DC 37 is 4% + 4% with no givebacks and the new teacher evaluation system is arguably the biggest concession ever made by the UFT and the Legislature passing Tier 6 was not a gain either. The city owes us this money without givebacks. We should demand it and an end to the evaluation system. Yes we would need to go the state and have the law changed. That is what we should mobilize around.
Unfortunately, I forecast that a huge majority of teachers will vote for any contract with retroactive raises in spite of the fact that such a contract will be our only chance to have any say on the new evaluation system, as it will be incorporated into the agreement.
We may also see a loss on merit pay with teachers rated highly effective getting bonuses. In the end our contract will probably be something like the Newark, NJ contract or the New Haven, CT contract.
On a positive note, I am not worried that the UFT will add insult to the evaluation system injury by selling out the Absent Teacher Reserves in a new contract by giving ATR's a time limit to find a new job after they are excessed. This surrender makes no sense. It would have to be agreed to by the State Legislature and other unions would destroy Mulgrew for setting a precedent that could then be applied to them too. (Close the fire houses and make the firefighters find a new house to accept them or face layoff). I also see some minor tweaks in the teacher evaluation system that Mulgrew will trumpet as great gains but will have little impact in the schools.
De Blasio and the UFT may also use the fact finding report as a starter and then expand it to a grand bargain on a much longer contract to settle two rounds of collective bargaining at once. Remember, the fact finders are dealing with our last contract which will have expired in 2011. We will have caught up with everyone else who does not have a contract.
I am not ready to publicly speculate on what could be in a grand bargain for a longer agreement but understand it is a possibility.
As usual I hope the situation will turn out differently. Maybe de Blasio will be the progressive he is accused of being and/or the rank and file teachers will be appalled and not accept the new evaluation system thus forcing a real sea change. It could happen but it is up to us to make that a reality. More likely, we will be thrown some money and we will be resigned to our awful working conditions.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
UFT DELEGATES ENTHUSIASTICALLY ENDORSE DE BLASIO FOR MAYOR BUT MULGREW ONCE AGAIN STIFLES ANY DISSENT
On Wednesday there was a special Delegate Assembly meeting called to endorse Bill de Blasio for Mayor. UFT President Michael Mulgrew used a major part of his report to talk about how he brought Democratic mayoral candidates Bill deBlasio and Bill Thompson together last weekend for a meeting at UFT HQ. His unity meeting obviously succeeded as it was one of the reasons Thompson was persuaded to drop out of the race for mayor on Monday even though all of the votes in the primary were not yet counted.
While Mulgrew appeared magnanimous with the mayoral candidates, he did not treat his Delegates the same way as he cut off debate on the deBlasio endorsement resolution before anyone was allowed to speak against the motion. Instead, to kill time he spent several minutes telling jokes while Delegates waited for deBlasio to show up to address them.
I raised a point of order and read the following line from Robert's Rules of Order (the parliamentary procedural rule book), "Ending debate. Debate of a question is not ended by the chair's rising to put the question to vote until both the affirmative and the negative are put;" It goes on by saying that "a member can claim the floor and thus reopen debate." That is clear language.
Now look up the meaning of the word debate from Webster's Dictionary: "Debate-1: To discuss a question by considering opposing arguments." The leadership of our union does not understand the words opposing arguments as in this so called debate, two Delegates from the majority Unity Caucus spoke in favor of supporting de Blasio and then a third, a retired teacher, rose to call for the end of the debate.
Since members of Unity Caucus sign a pledge that they will support decisions of the caucus in union and public forums (the so called Unity loyalty oath), Mulgrew knew how the Delegates from his party would stand on the issue and the only Delegate who wanted to oppose the de Blasio endorsement was Marjorie Stamberg, a person whose call for an American working class party is known throughout the DA. She should have been permitted to address the body so we could hear an opposing viewpoint. That is the whole purpose of debate.
Mulgrew not only ignored my point of order, instead he erroneously stated that a point of order is a question. What was he talking about? A point of order according to Robert's Rules is "an assertion that a rule is being violated and a request that the rule be enforced by the chair. It takes precedence over any pending motion out of which it arises."
At this point, the UFT's parliamentarian just fumbled through a book that looked from a distance like Roberts' Rules but said nothing. Mulgrew, as previously mentioned, had nothing to say so he told jokes while waiting for de Blasio to arrive and then as soon as he had word that the Public Advocate was in the house, he called on Delegates to vote on the endorsement. The vote was nearly unanimous (I voted for the endorsement as readers of this blog know I endorsed de Blasio prior to the primary) but I was once again disgusted by the lack of democracy at the DA and I wish that all of the people who complain about the DA would vocally show support when someone attempts to see that democratic protocol is followed. Delegates came to me after the meeting and said I was right but during the meetings there needs to be a movement for real democracy.
While Mulgrew appeared magnanimous with the mayoral candidates, he did not treat his Delegates the same way as he cut off debate on the deBlasio endorsement resolution before anyone was allowed to speak against the motion. Instead, to kill time he spent several minutes telling jokes while Delegates waited for deBlasio to show up to address them.
I raised a point of order and read the following line from Robert's Rules of Order (the parliamentary procedural rule book), "Ending debate. Debate of a question is not ended by the chair's rising to put the question to vote until both the affirmative and the negative are put;" It goes on by saying that "a member can claim the floor and thus reopen debate." That is clear language.
Now look up the meaning of the word debate from Webster's Dictionary: "Debate-1: To discuss a question by considering opposing arguments." The leadership of our union does not understand the words opposing arguments as in this so called debate, two Delegates from the majority Unity Caucus spoke in favor of supporting de Blasio and then a third, a retired teacher, rose to call for the end of the debate.
Since members of Unity Caucus sign a pledge that they will support decisions of the caucus in union and public forums (the so called Unity loyalty oath), Mulgrew knew how the Delegates from his party would stand on the issue and the only Delegate who wanted to oppose the de Blasio endorsement was Marjorie Stamberg, a person whose call for an American working class party is known throughout the DA. She should have been permitted to address the body so we could hear an opposing viewpoint. That is the whole purpose of debate.
Mulgrew not only ignored my point of order, instead he erroneously stated that a point of order is a question. What was he talking about? A point of order according to Robert's Rules is "an assertion that a rule is being violated and a request that the rule be enforced by the chair. It takes precedence over any pending motion out of which it arises."
At this point, the UFT's parliamentarian just fumbled through a book that looked from a distance like Roberts' Rules but said nothing. Mulgrew, as previously mentioned, had nothing to say so he told jokes while waiting for de Blasio to arrive and then as soon as he had word that the Public Advocate was in the house, he called on Delegates to vote on the endorsement. The vote was nearly unanimous (I voted for the endorsement as readers of this blog know I endorsed de Blasio prior to the primary) but I was once again disgusted by the lack of democracy at the DA and I wish that all of the people who complain about the DA would vocally show support when someone attempts to see that democratic protocol is followed. Delegates came to me after the meeting and said I was right but during the meetings there needs to be a movement for real democracy.
PRESIDENT'S REPORT
Since this was a special Delegate Assembly, there was only a report from President Michael Mulgrew and the resolution to support deBlasio. The President covered much of the same ground he touched on last week in the Chapter Leader meeting. However, before he began there was a moment of silence for Florence Wilpon, a UFT activist from PS 137 who recently passed away.
Concerning the opening of school, Mulgrew reported that the problems were the evaluation system and the lack of curriculum. He stated that the parents were upset with the recent test results and we need to be there to support them. He talked about the desperate situation for teachers nationally. He then took a poke at Bloomberg calling him the worst education mayor in history.
He followed by speaking about evaluations and said we would not go back to the old system even though the current process is not that great. The biggest concern is the Measures of Student Learning portion of the system. He said we had an agreement with the Department of Education in March that fell apart that was much better than the system State Education Department Commissioner John King imposed in his arbitration.
He added that there are contradictions in the arbitration and that it isn't going to work but that the point of the new evaluation system is supposed to be to support and develop the work that teachers do. He told us he can't understand how a teacher who does not teach English can be held accountable for English test results. He then stated that this is not the evaluation system we would want a year from now and said it would be fixed in contract negotiations.
The remainder of the report concerned politics. Mulgrew said that our candidates won the vast majority of the 54 campaigns we were involved in this year. He then spent time saying how Republican Joe Lhota wants to continue the Bloomberg education policies so we must defeat him and elect a Democrat as mayor.
On Thompson he pointed out that it is unconscionable that 10% of the primary votes are still not counted as of today and as a Thompson supporter, he respected the wishes of the candidate. Then he talked about the meeting that was held last Saturday between Mulgrew, Thompson and deBlasio where they all agreed to do what is best for the city that they love by electing a Democratic mayor in November. Then, there was the aforementioned motion and the usual one sided debate. Mulgrew then stalled and finally deBlasio came in and addressed the crowd.
DE BLASIO SPEECH
De Blasio told the Delegates that we must fix what has been broken. He thanked Mulgrew for handling a delicate situation well. He said there was now a danger of complacency. He stated that he saw the poll showing him way ahead but he wasn't fooled because vicious attacks against him would soon be coming because of his proposal to tax the wealthy to pay for universal pre-kindergarten as well as after school programs for middle schools. He said they would throw the kitchen sink at him because of his alliance with the teacher's union.
He then declared that we can have a safe city and a strong city. He spoke about his "Tale of Two Cities" theme noting that it is a patriotic act to acknowledge it and fix it. He said it is not anti-business to build affordable housing or for people like car wash workers and fast food workers to organize into unions. He complimented the UFT for organizing the child care workers and said that he was honored to be a part of that campaign.
He pointed out that he is trying to be the first mayor to have a child in the public schools. (Someone in the crowd yelled the name of his son Dante and received a warm reaction from the candidate.)
He then concluded his remarks by saying that he thinks of teachers as heroes and that in the next seven weeks we will need to give it our all as we must fight back against the brutal attacks that are coming and we must achieve a strong victory on November 5. He received a thunderous standing ovation and the meeting ended.
Friday, September 13, 2013
READING THE TEA LEAVES AT CHAPTER LEADER MEETING: Sayanara Bill Thompson? Don't Expect Much Improvement on the Evaluation System with a New Mayor
We're back in school and the UFT called for a Chapter Leader meeting on Wednesday at the Brooklyn Bridge Marriot. Great cookies and lots of soft drinks were an enticement to listen to President Michael Mulgrew give one of his lengthy monologues. After listening to him for over an hour, here are my quick views on what he said or at least implied:
1. The UFT will abandon Bill Thompson's mayoral campaignin a hurry soon to achieve Democratic party unity and hope for the best opportunity to elect a Democrat as the mayor.
2. Mulgrew wants to tweak the new teacher evaluation system but we are stuck with it and the UFT will continue to promote it. However, judging by the reaction from the Chapter Leaders, it seems like the rank and file aren't buying.
Mulgrew was not humbled by the results (Thompson lost by around 14%) at all and took a victory lap by noting that Comptroller candidate Scott Stringer, who beat Elliot Spitzer in the Primary on Tuesday, specifically thanked the teachers for getting him in. Mulgrew then reported on how UFT candidates won 42 out of 47 races on Tuesday and a couple of others are still too close to call.
During the question period, the Chapter Leader from Dewey High School questioned the Thompson endorsement and Mulgrew responded that it was done democratically and the Chapter Leader must not like democracy. (I am just reporting folks; please don't gag when UFT Presidents stand up for democracy.)
Mulgrew also reported that the outgoing mayor would be trying to collocate and even close as many schools as possible before he leaves office at the end of the year. He also noted that we would be going to the Panel for Educational Policy to urge them to have teachers, not test scores, be the final judge on which students get promoted.
1. The UFT will abandon Bill Thompson's mayoral campaign
2. Mulgrew wants to tweak the new teacher evaluation system but we are stuck with it and the UFT will continue to promote it. However, judging by the reaction from the Chapter Leaders, it seems like the rank and file aren't buying.
POLITICS
From listening to Mulgrew's remarks, at first it looked like the UFT would be sticking with Thompson. He said that Thompson only missed the runoff by around 700 votes. (That number was disputed by some people around where I sat.) However, then Mulgrew stated that after twenty years of Republican mayors and the damage they have done to the school system, it is imperative that we elect a Democrat in November as our top priority. (Translation: We don't need a three week runoff where two Democrats bloody each other and Republican Lhota could possibly sneak in.) Mulgrew even stated that we don't want a split Democratic party. He then told us there might soon be a special Delegate Assembly on an updated endorsement. (Translation: We will be supporting deBlasio hopefully.)Mulgrew was not humbled by the results (Thompson lost by around 14%) at all and took a victory lap by noting that Comptroller candidate Scott Stringer, who beat Elliot Spitzer in the Primary on Tuesday, specifically thanked the teachers for getting him in. Mulgrew then reported on how UFT candidates won 42 out of 47 races on Tuesday and a couple of others are still too close to call.
During the question period, the Chapter Leader from Dewey High School questioned the Thompson endorsement and Mulgrew responded that it was done democratically and the Chapter Leader must not like democracy. (I am just reporting folks; please don't gag when UFT Presidents stand up for democracy.)
Mulgrew also reported that the outgoing mayor would be trying to collocate and even close as many schools as possible before he leaves office at the end of the year. He also noted that we would be going to the Panel for Educational Policy to urge them to have teachers, not test scores, be the final judge on which students get promoted.
NEW EVALUATION SYSTEM
President Mulgrew ceded very little ground when he talked about the state imposed new teacher evaluation system. While members of the Movement of Rank and File Educators were handing out leaflets with a petition on the back urging for a moratorium on imposing the new system, Mulgrew was inside telling us that the UFT disagrees with the implementation of the new system by the current Department of Education administration. Specifically, he emphasized how there is a state Public Employees Relations Board case going on and a Union initiated grievance. He also told us that there are 150 new arbitration slots thanks to the new system so we can have many problems that can't be worked out by October 25 taken to this expedited process. He once again insisted that we have stronger due process under the current system than we had in the past.
He then argued that the increased observations under Danielson's framework could be positive if they are handled in a collegial way by administration but if administration plays hardball with teachers, Mulgrew recommended that teachers respond in kind by holding them to the letter of the law.
Mulgrew did admit that he was troubled by the Measures of Student Learning (MOSL) portion of the new "Advance" evaluation system, where we are judged on student test scores, but he insisted that changing and expanding what can be used for our MOSL scores would be a priority in contract negotiations.
During the question period, Mulgrew addressed lesson plans. He told the Chapter Leaders that the Danielson framework leaves the lesson plan format up to the teacher but the DOE disputes this. He said that our contract is still in effect in terms of freedom of lesson plan format and prohibition against ritualized collection of lesson plans by administration so we are in grievance in these areas.
Mulgrew summed up the evaluation system by predicting that two years from now, many more schools will be doing evaluation right than wrong and that teachers need to get over their fear of having other adults in their classrooms. He also told us that we must report it to the UFT if we need questions answered on the evaluation system, if don't have curriculum or if we have problems such as oversize classes.
NATIONAL POLITICS
The President briefly touched on the national scene when he declared that the situation is dire in cities around the country for public education. He told us how 35% of the teachers had been laid off in Philadelphia by a Democratic mayor who was turning over much of the system to charter schools. He then stated that 52 schools were closed in Chicago despite the valiant fight against it there and those teachers only had five months to find a new job or they were laid off. He then stated that Los Angeles and Houston were also in bad shape.
He followed this by noting that we are not in such a bad position in NYC but that over the next couple of years we may have the opportunity to turn NYC into a model public school system. He told us we might have to change from fighting to a different mode of operation in the near future.
(Translation: Expect more Newark/DC style contract concessions in the future in NYC. Get used to being judged on junk science and constantly observed. It will make you a better teacher!)
UPDATE-I came home from Brooklyn to eastern Queens, where I live, around 7:30 pm last night. My wife and I ate, played some games with our four year old daughter (the fun part of the day) before helping to get her to bed. I was exhausted so I went to sleep without checking the news and woke up before 5:00 am to write this piece. I didn't know that Thompson was fighting on. Is the UFT really considering holding out on this?
UPDATE-I came home from Brooklyn to eastern Queens, where I live, around 7:30 pm last night. My wife and I ate, played some games with our four year old daughter (the fun part of the day) before helping to get her to bed. I was exhausted so I went to sleep without checking the news and woke up before 5:00 am to write this piece. I didn't know that Thompson was fighting on. Is the UFT really considering holding out on this?
Saturday, September 07, 2013
MY ENDORSEMENTS AND NON-ENDORSEMENTS (NOT SPEAKING FOR ICE)
The Primary Election is Tuesday, September 10 and this has been one really strange race for mayor. Yes it matters for teachers, parents and students who the next mayor will be and people have been asking me who I will be voting for in Tuesday's primary for the citywide offices.
The Independent Community of Educators (ICE) has discussed the races but not taken a position. What follows is my view and my view only that is based mostly on education issues. It does not reflect the position of ICE or MORE, or Jeff Kaufman or anyone but me.
The Independent Community of Educators (ICE) has discussed the races but not taken a position. What follows is my view and my view only that is based mostly on education issues. It does not reflect the position of ICE or MORE, or Jeff Kaufman or anyone but me.
NON-ENDORSEMENT OF THOMPSON
The UFT has been strongly pushing Bill Thompson, the former comptroller and one time president of the old Board of Education, for mayor. Like NYC Educator, I have made phone calls for UFT endorsed candidates I support, written newsletters and talked to my chapter about solid candidates who are backed by the UFT. However, I cannot support Thompson for three reasons.
First, he said Bloomberg was correct in not offering the same 4%+4% raises to teachers in 2009 that most other city unions received in the last round of collective bargaining back then. In the debate last Tuesday (go to around 8 minute 45 second mark for the question), Thompson did not come out and say we are owed retroactive money which is a small fortune after five years without the raise that most other city employees received and the city owes us because of pattern bargaining (one union settles on a contract and the rest of the unions receive the same financial terms).
First, he said Bloomberg was correct in not offering the same 4%+4% raises to teachers in 2009 that most other city unions received in the last round of collective bargaining back then. In the debate last Tuesday (go to around 8 minute 45 second mark for the question), Thompson did not come out and say we are owed retroactive money which is a small fortune after five years without the raise that most other city employees received and the city owes us because of pattern bargaining (one union settles on a contract and the rest of the unions receive the same financial terms).
Second, the co-chair of his campaign is Merryl Tisch, the Chancellor of the New York State Board of Regents and architect of much of the teacher bashing-privatization agenda that is killing us. Third, Republican former Senator Al D'Amato, a renowned teacher basher, is a key Thompson supporter and fundraiser. Do you really think Thompson will ignore Tisch and D'Amato and side with us if he is elected? Expect a modified version of Ed deform if he wins.
The question must be asked about why the UFT has been so strong in their advocacy of Thompson. It is the biggest push from the leadership that I have ever seen. Does anyone ever recall emails from the president asking us to contribute money to a political campaign? Isn't COPE (political funds we voluntarily contribute from our checks) enough?
Once again paralleling NYC Educator, I received phone calls asking me to make phone calls for Thompson. Unlike NYC Educator, I was not home and didn't respond. Mailings from Thompson show up regularly in my mail at home. There are UFT sponsored TV ads in support of his candidacy and last Tuesday the District Representative for Queens High Schools made an urgent plea for chapter leaders to go to every member to individually convince each member to vote for Thompson. They are calling it the most important vote we ever have had. I don't agree that Thompson is worth all of this fuss. To me it looks like the union leadership is looking out for their own reputation and really not considering its rank and file.
Once again paralleling NYC Educator, I received phone calls asking me to make phone calls for Thompson. Unlike NYC Educator, I was not home and didn't respond. Mailings from Thompson show up regularly in my mail at home. There are UFT sponsored TV ads in support of his candidacy and last Tuesday the District Representative for Queens High Schools made an urgent plea for chapter leaders to go to every member to individually convince each member to vote for Thompson. They are calling it the most important vote we ever have had. I don't agree that Thompson is worth all of this fuss. To me it looks like the union leadership is looking out for their own reputation and really not considering its rank and file.
People have asked me if the union will be weakened if another UFT endorsed candidate loses in the primary. Remember we supported three candidates who each lost in 2001. The answer is it will hurt us but we would be weaker supporting another winning Democratic candidate who is in bed with the same interests that want to privatize public education. Ask yourself what we have gotten back for endorsing Barack Obama for president. What did the AFL-CIO get for supporting Andrew Cuomo for governor? I do not think Thompson would be as bad as those two but I don't see anything but marginal improvements for us under a Thompson mayoralty.
Based on the evidence, at this time I do not think a Thompson endorsement is wise but I would consider supporting Thompson in a runoff against Christine Quinn which now appears to be a highly unlikely prospect.
THE FIELD
What about the other candidates?
Christine Quinn, as Speaker of the City Council, could have told Bloomberg to take a hike when he asked for a third term by never bringing the bill to end term limits to the City Council floor but she didn't do it. Instead, she made a political deal in 2008 to overturn two votes of the people supporting term limits for city officials. She paved the way for Bloomberg's disastrous third term. In return, I will not be supporting her. The fact that she is endorsed by the anti teacher NY Times, NY Post and Daily News just clinches my anti Quinn vote. People are saying that a vote for Quinn is a vote for a de facto term four for Bloomberg and I concur.
Sal Albanese is a former teacher who says as part of his education plan that he will "Stand up to the UFT." He goes on to say the following concerning teachers, "...a Mayor who represents the whole city must be willing to put his foot down, be a smart financial steward, and protect the interests of all New Yorkers." I don't want a mayor who is putting his foot down on me.
Case closed on Sal.
Case closed on Sal.
John Liu makes many good points on issues but he has little chance of winning and he has run a radio ad saying that he is going to get rid of bad teachers. Is that based on student test scores? That is a deal breaker for me.
Bill de Blasio is kind of an unknown as to where he really stands. The current Public Advocate is running a progressive campaign with his "tale of two cities" advocacy for the poor and middle class. His big proposal is to tax people making over $500,000 a year to fund universal pre-kindergarten and after school programs. Having a four year old daughter myself and knowing how difficult (basically impossible) it was to get her into a city pre-K program this fall, de Blasio's proposal strikes me as being very sound.
Bill deBlasio also has the endorsement of the leading fighters against the school privatization movement: Diane Ravitch and Leonie Haimson. In addition, the Professional Staff Congress (CUNY teachers union), an American Federation of Teachers local, is endorsing deBlasio as is Local 1199, the biggest union in the city.
Public advocate deBlasio has been criticized for changing positions on issues such as ending term limits which he supported in 2005 but then opposed, when it mattered in 2008, when Bloomberg and Quinn engineered the mayor's third term.
My biggest concern is seeing that de Blasio has worked closely with the real estate interests that have certainly not done much to improve life in this city for average New Yorkers. If elected, will he help his money people or the other New York he is campaigning for? I am skeptical.
My wife and I met with the Public Advocate to ask him to assist Jamaica High School back in 2010. He was sympathetic but there hasn't been much help since then from his office. In fairness, there wasn't much he could have done other than join lawsuits.
The rest of the Democrats and Republicans in the field are obviously not viable including Anthony Weiner, aka Carlos Danger. When the UFT made their ill timed endorsement of Thompson in June, Danger was still riding high in the polls. His latest sexting scandal had not yet been exposed.
Unlike some of my fellow bloggers and others who write regularly on NYC education matters, I am a NYC resident and registered Democrat. My vote will be for Bill deBlasio. Although I am not convinced that de Blasio is a great candidate, I'm betting that having support from people like Diane Ravitch, Leonie Haimson and Professional Staff Congress President Barbara Bowen will persuade him to do what is right for public education more than Bill Thompson who is backed by Merryl Tisch, Al D'Amato, AFT President Randi Weingarten and UFT President Michael Mulgrew.
I do believe that the UFT will jump on board the deBlasio bandwagon if he wins the primary and is the Democratic nominee.
I do believe that the UFT will jump on board the deBlasio bandwagon if he wins the primary and is the Democratic nominee.
One final point on the mayor's race. The UFT is supposed to have such a smart political insider operation under Mulgrew but they didn't know that Carlos Danger might implode and much of his support could go to deBlasio. Had they waited for this race to break a little in the summer, they may have not locked themselves into the Thompson corner that they are now stuck in with much of their membership not at all impressed.
SCOTT STRINGER FOR COMPTROLLER
Scott Stringer as Manhattan Borough President appointed Patrick Sullivan as his representative on the Bloomberg controlled Panel for Educational Policy. Right from the start, Patrick has been a real friend of public education and a thorn in the side of the Department of Education. He has been the only one to consistently expose the waste of taxpayer money in DOE contracts. Stringer has allowed Patrick to vote his conscience and he has come through for public schools, not only in Manhattan but citywide.
Stringer's representative is a true friend of Jamaica High School and not only supported us but advocated for our cause vocally at the PEP and behind the scenes. In a rational political system, my school would not be phasing out.
I know some friends have some real issues with Stinger because of development in Manhattan but for me as a teacher, I am strongly persuaded that he has some principles because of Sullivan and the alternative of a return of Elliot Spitzer to office does not seem that appealing.
LETITIA JAMES FOR PUBLIC ADVOCATE
Tish James signed onto the lawsuit to save Jamaica and many other schools. When Leonie Haimson convinced me to come with a group of students to testify before the City Council Education Committee, Councilwoman James treated our kids like the experts on education that they truly are. I think she would be a strong public advocate, particularly for public education.
REALITY BASED EDUCATOR GETS AN A+ FOR ELECTION COVERAGE
This summer, while away, my family kept up with the political and education news each day by going to the Perdido Street School blog. I urge everyone to read Reality Based Educator daily.
Monday, September 02, 2013
UFT-DOE THROW SENIOR TEACHERS IN PHASING OUT SCHOOLS UNDER THE BUS
As New York City teachers, we can usually count on our union, the United Federation of Teachers, to represent our employer's interests at least as much as ours if not more so. Case in point: excessing in phasing out schools. As a school phases out, obviously the staff is going to shrink as each year there is one less grade. However, the UFT Contract has a clause that protects senior teachers. It is Article 17B, Rule 10 which states:
Teachers at all levels who have served 20 years or longer on regular appointment shall not be excessed except for those in neighboring schools who are excessed to staff a newly organized school.
That is strong, unambiguous language that prevents excessing of senior teachers. However, unbeknownst to anyone out of the inner circle of the UFT and Department of Education, last September the two sides reached an agreement to allow twenty year teachers to be excessed. For teachers in non phasing out schools, they are excessed within their own schools. They become Absent Teacher Reserves who cover for classes of absent teachers but they are not subject to the horrible week-to-week rotation to different schools that other ATRs have been forced to endure since the 2011 UFT-DOE agreement on ATRs.
Since many Rule 10 teachers are serving in license areas where there are not that many openings, these people no longer have to teach out of license in order to stay in their own buildings. The remainder of the Rule 10 people are primarily teachers from schools that are downsizing, usually phasing out schools.
There is absolutely no reason for the UFT, which says they are against school closings, to not hold the DOE to the letter of Rule 10 in a school that is downsizing. However, as part of the agreement from last September, the parties agreed that the DOE can excess veteran teachers in the last year of a school's phase out and send them into the week-to-week rotation pool. This makes no sense educationally and it is a mindless concession on the part of the UFT.
Students and staff in closing schools have already been harmed a great deal through the phase out process as we have been labeled as failures by the city. The DOE then does everything it can to push students out of phasing out schools by not offering many of the classes that numerous pupils require for graduation and then telling them repeatedly that they should transfer.
Each year as the school loses a grade, there are fewer students so the staff is cut proportionally. As a result, there is less access to more parts of the school building for the remaining students and there are extremely limited course offerings. Having the Rule 10 people in the school provided much needed stability for the kids as at least there were known faces that pupils could turn to for college recommendations, advice, tutoring and support. In addition, having more teachers meant the DOE was compelled to provide more real classes as opposed to internet classes that are not rigorous and pupils complain about constantly. Rule 10 teachers guaranteed a modicum of normalcy in the insane world that is a closing school. This logic was ignored by UFT leaders when they agreed to force people contractually entitled to stay in a school out of their buildings.
Apparently, the UFT was not too proud about this Rule 10 agreement as President Michael Mulgrew only mentioned it in passing last fall and he never handed the full agreement out to us to let the Delegate Assembly vote on it. I only found out about it because the principal of my school gave me a copy in June.
Finally, for those hoping the UFT leaders would save us legally as they filed suit in 2011 to stop that year's round of school closings, a friend informed me that there have been no papers filed on that suit since May 2012. Have they abandoned us there as well?
Happy Labor Day all and I hope to start posting regularly again as the school year begins.
Teachers at all levels who have served 20 years or longer on regular appointment shall not be excessed except for those in neighboring schools who are excessed to staff a newly organized school.
That is strong, unambiguous language that prevents excessing of senior teachers. However, unbeknownst to anyone out of the inner circle of the UFT and Department of Education, last September the two sides reached an agreement to allow twenty year teachers to be excessed. For teachers in non phasing out schools, they are excessed within their own schools. They become Absent Teacher Reserves who cover for classes of absent teachers but they are not subject to the horrible week-to-week rotation to different schools that other ATRs have been forced to endure since the 2011 UFT-DOE agreement on ATRs.
Since many Rule 10 teachers are serving in license areas where there are not that many openings, these people no longer have to teach out of license in order to stay in their own buildings. The remainder of the Rule 10 people are primarily teachers from schools that are downsizing, usually phasing out schools.
There is absolutely no reason for the UFT, which says they are against school closings, to not hold the DOE to the letter of Rule 10 in a school that is downsizing. However, as part of the agreement from last September, the parties agreed that the DOE can excess veteran teachers in the last year of a school's phase out and send them into the week-to-week rotation pool. This makes no sense educationally and it is a mindless concession on the part of the UFT.
Students and staff in closing schools have already been harmed a great deal through the phase out process as we have been labeled as failures by the city. The DOE then does everything it can to push students out of phasing out schools by not offering many of the classes that numerous pupils require for graduation and then telling them repeatedly that they should transfer.
Each year as the school loses a grade, there are fewer students so the staff is cut proportionally. As a result, there is less access to more parts of the school building for the remaining students and there are extremely limited course offerings. Having the Rule 10 people in the school provided much needed stability for the kids as at least there were known faces that pupils could turn to for college recommendations, advice, tutoring and support. In addition, having more teachers meant the DOE was compelled to provide more real classes as opposed to internet classes that are not rigorous and pupils complain about constantly. Rule 10 teachers guaranteed a modicum of normalcy in the insane world that is a closing school. This logic was ignored by UFT leaders when they agreed to force people contractually entitled to stay in a school out of their buildings.
Apparently, the UFT was not too proud about this Rule 10 agreement as President Michael Mulgrew only mentioned it in passing last fall and he never handed the full agreement out to us to let the Delegate Assembly vote on it. I only found out about it because the principal of my school gave me a copy in June.
Finally, for those hoping the UFT leaders would save us legally as they filed suit in 2011 to stop that year's round of school closings, a friend informed me that there have been no papers filed on that suit since May 2012. Have they abandoned us there as well?
Happy Labor Day all and I hope to start posting regularly again as the school year begins.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)