NYS Repeats Ugly Historical Dictatorship History with Moral Character Provision in New Teacher Law

“Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.”—George Santayana

And so, Governor Andrew Cuomo and the New York State legislature take one more ugly step degrading our republic.

Along with the budget and teacher evaluation changes the legislature passed (in  S2006B/A3006B) included this insulting provision, that puts teachers into a class like that of sex offenders:

Certificate holders shall notify the department of any change of name or mailing address within thirty days of such change. Willful failure to register or provide such notice within one hundred eighty days of such change may constitute grounds for moral character review under subdivision seven of section three hundred five of this chapter.

This follows an item that the Perdido Street blogger charges is aimed at eliminating senior teachers. He wrote:

"We've already found that permanent certificate holders have lost the "permanent" status of their teaching certification since they now have to "register" every five years for their certification or risk losing their licenses."

To skeptics about this provision: yes, teachers and other professionals have had to register address changes with the state of New York, but this one newly charges teachers with a "Moral Character Review" if they fail to comply.

Where is the UFT in this attack? United Federation of Teachers president Michael Mulgrew declared the bill a victory --days before it was finished and voted on!

See reaction and analysis at this PSS blog post:
http://perdidostreetschool.blogspot.com/2015/04/nysed-can-do-moral-character-review-if.html

And analysis and reaction at this Diane Ravitch piece:
http://dianeravitch.net/2015/04/04/perdido-street-if-you-change-your-address-without-informing-big-brother-bad-things-will-happen/comment-page-1/

Newsday Front Page: NYSUT's Magee: Parents Should Opt Out Their Children

So on the March 31, 2015 editions of Newsday we read that NYSUT's Karen Magee advised: Parents Should Opt Out Their Children.

So why not New York City's President Michael Mulgrew?

Because he has always sung the reformer-friendly refrain, that all that is needed is better tests --that the testing regime itself is not onerous, it's just the implementation that is bad.

And maybe this is also reflecting how just a year ago Mulgrew was engineering a coup de etat of the New York State United Teachers (NYSUT) assembly at their convention at the home base of New York City. (Hmm, when do you suppose NYSUT will have its convention in a more mutual location, such as Utica?)

The irony is that among his handpicked NYSUT teachers, the leader is taking some bold positions such as her opposition to the high stakes tests. And such talk would get people remembering that Mulgrew just a year ago had bought a thousands dollars table at a Cuomo reelection fundraiser.

What is To Be Done About Cuomo's War on Teachers; the Frankenstein from Mulgrew's WFP endorsement gambit; Unity-UFT's Anemic Mobilization vs. Cuomo's War

WHAT IS TO BE DONE? [Updated]: CTU-STYLE MOBILIZATION
Cuomo is at war with teachers; disingenuous is that Mulgrew is mobilizing versus him; their friendship lurks recent -- Once again, Weingarten looks a little better


Governor Andrew Cuomo has declared war on the Teachers of New York State.
 
This much is apparent from his statements at the opening of the 2015 political year.

And the New York Times has clearly recognized it with: "Cuomo’s Education Agenda Sets Battle Lines With Teachers’ Unions"

And to their credit the New York Times has stood up for reason for teachers in an editorial with integrity.

"The Central Crisis in New York Education"
[Postscript revision: the New York Times has challenged Cuomo's contention that the state's schools are in a particularly dire situation: "Cuomo Cites School Crisis in New York; Data Suggest Otherwise."

But Cuomo's latest salvo is only a recent chapter. For, Cuomo has long been at war with teachers. Since 2010 Cuomo has stipulated tough teacher evaluations, Annual Professional Performance Reviews (granted, it does make sense that teachers get annual professional reviews, but teacher had them previously, and the new regimen saddles cash-strapped districts with heavy costs, as this post discussed in 2013, citing this study).


Also, in 2010, and without seeing the full Common Core standards, Cuomo, with NYSED Commissioner David Steiner and Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch ALONG WITH UFT PRESIDENT MICHAEL MULGREW accepted the Common Core State Standards. All of this was reported in 2013 with links at this blog in  "How Mulgrew's Responsible for Disastrous NYC Teachers' Evaluation; Gender & the Weingarten Comparisons."

MULGREW'S POSTURE TO CUOMO: COLLABORATION AND POLITICAL STEWARDSHIP
It is the height of hypocrisy for Mulgrew to protest Cuomo's chicanery when he participated with Cuomo's attacks on teachers. Furthermore, as reported here last year, Mulgrew paid a five digit sum just a year ago for a table at a Cuomo fundraiser.
Mulgrew and the United Federation of Teachers leadership, in a historically cynical move, bullied the Working Families Party last May. Mulgrew and others threatened to defund the WFP if it did not endorse Cuomo. As he pushed through the WFP endorsement of Cuomo, Mulgrew gave "progressive" sheen to Cuomo in the eyes of many impressionable voters. Well, thanks a lot, Michael! Don't tell us that you did not see this coming. Read these essential posts at Perdido Street School on May 30, and May 31, 2014 for details of this fiasco.

WEAK, DISINGENUOUS MULGREW-UNITY RESPONSE TO CUOMO BLITZKRIEG
And Mulgrew's response to this formidable attack? An anemic "emergency Delegate Assembly" this Wednesday at UFT headquarters and a stone-ages simple website.

Randi Weingarten -2005 sellout contract and all, looks more like the militant as she held a mass rally at Madison Square Garden. Just months later there was even, in many quarters of the union, talk of a strike authorization vote.

WHAT SHOULD BE DONE: A CHICAGO TEACHERS UNION (CTU)-LIKE MOBILIZATION
Instead of elite level caucusing at Wednesday's emergency DA, away from the rank and file, at the UFT headquarters, there should be a thorough education campaign at the school level of:
*how poverty impacts education performance
*how Common Core distorts proper teaching
*how Danielson demeans the teaching profession
*how poverty + Cuomo's new 50% high stakes test performance hurdle + Danielson-informed APPR potentially dooms the careers of thousands of teachers
*how Cuomo failed to give New York City Schools the Campaign for Fiscal Equity $5.9 billion that they are due and he promised in his WFP endorsement deal with Mulgrew and other union leaders

This campaign should be done with school level organizing, before school hours sidewalk pitches, regular community outreach, selectively door-to-door and at houses of worship, mass rallies at public squares, thorough social media usage and threats of work to rule.

Then, and only then, could Mulgrew begin to undo the damage of his political courtship of Cuomo.

DC 37 agrees to weak contract similar to UFT's contract

This spring many NYC municipal union leaders were upset with the United Federation of Teachers president Michael Mulgrew for his weak contract with the city. Yesterday District Council 37 leaders agreed to a contract with New York City that repeats many of those weaknesses. Principal among those weaknesses is a 10.52 wage increase spread over the seven years and four months, increases that probably will not keep pace with inflation. Additionally, payments postponed to the future mean monies that of course cannot earn interest during that delay.

The agreement at this stage is tentative and would need rank and file approval as a few bargaining units have not yet signed off on it. It covers approximately 100,000 workers. DC 37 members include hospital staff, social service workers, child care workers, maintenance workers and others. Like the UFT contract, it includes a con device, the "signing bonus" of $1,000. For DC 37 who earn significantly less than UFT members this will be a significant enticement.

Cryptically, news coverage of the tentative pact includes mention of "changes to their medical benefits." New York City teachers are already wincing with anticipation of what givebacks they face with the contract. As NY1 notes, it is not yet indicated how the $795 million in givebacks (which the media euphemistically call "savings") due to be implemented by 2019 will be accomplished.

Still remaining to be settled with the city are several uniformed worker unions, such as police, firefighter and sanitation workers. Let's hope that they have stronger spines than the UFT and do not follow on the UFT's precedence as DC 37 did and do not settle for another sucker's contract. One can presume that Mayor de Blasio expects similar giveback contracts from other unions. As reported on NY1, he said, "Every union has its own reality, but I'm confident we're going to keep up a lot of momentum." 


For more, read Gloria Pazmino and Sally Goldenberg's "De Blasio Announces Tentative Contract with D.C. 37," and Grace Rauh from NY1, "City Reaches Tentative Deal With DC 37 Labor Union."

As the ICEUFT blog notes, this contract is not as bad as the UFT contract. It does not mention postponed payment of backpay, otherwise called retroactive, retro or arrears payments. The UFT contract puts these payments off until 2020. And those resigning between now and then forfeit repayment of that back pay.

Updated: Mulgrew to Teachers: Drop Dead / 5/16 Chief: NYC Unions Don't Heart Mulgrew

*UPDATE: "Uniformed Unions Can't Get Past 0 in UFT Deal."
Where do we begin with United Federation of Teachers president Michael Mulgrew's chutzpah? First, we have the matter of his arrogance at the delegate assemblies, and his patronizing, sexist treatment of alternative caucus (MORE) delegates.

Next, we have his contract, which famously got its first attention as an ATRs under the bus contract, garnering an early denunciation as such from a top activist at MORE.

Yet, the controversy over the union's abandonment of the ATRs has overshadowed other objectionable aspects of the contract.  There is the head-scratching stimulating plan to stretch out increased pay and retro over several years, so that the repayment is not settled until 2020, two years after the contract has expired. Note this MORE leaflet of the pay schedule, which sways members that initially supported the contract to a no vote. In chapter and borough-level meetings members are putting the details together and are calling this a cynical plan to improve teacher retention; rank and filers and vets alike are calling this a no interest loan to the city (and are pointing out that in past instances, 1976, 1991, of union loans to the city we got interest).

Perturbed union heads
Even more close to home for Mulgew, he is burning his bridges with other New York City labor leaders. The poor retro repayment issue has many union heads upset at Mulgrew and his apologist Unity caucus lieutenants. The Unity caucus is the dominant caucus of the union, and it is the group that actually produced this contract. You know things are bad when other labor union leaders are openly criticizing another union's contract deal. Indeed, the May 16 Chief issue is rife with stories of union heads upset with Mulgrew because of the UFT offering a weak contract. The issue carries a stinging, long editorial column, extending over the better part of two pages, "Uniformed Unions Can't Get Past 0 in UFT Deal." The column echoes Captains' Endowment Association President Roy Richter statement, "I go back to the classic 'no zeroes for heroes'" referring to Giuliani's two-year wage freeze.
The other New York City municipal union leaders fear that weak contract elements will set a precedent, making it more difficult for other union leaders in the other trades to seek acceptable contracts.

In particular, attention has been drawn to how the Transport Workers Union got a better deal on their members' retroactive payments.


Stretched out retro, ignoring the phenomenon of interest, ignoring the past precedent of interest collection from the city
The UFT's give-away will alienate the other local labor leaders from Mulgrew as they now have to negotiate with the city, which will take advantage of the UFT's weak precedent-setting contract. How can other unions get good pay terms when this disaster precedent is established?
Thus, The Chief reports, "They noted that this would likely fail to keep pace with the rise in the cost of living, and police-union leaders were at least as unhappy that an 18-month period of the UFT deal--which would potentially constitute the very start of their own contracts--features a wage freeze, although a $1,000 bonus would be paid."


Tongue-tied district reps and other contract promoters
It is rather pathetic to see the parade of cheerleaders for this contract. Way too often the reports are that the various promoters are stumped when it comes time to answer specific questions about retro, pay increases and undisclosed health premium increases. The confused reps are left having to tell the confused members that they'll have to get back to them after talking with the union's experts downtown. We should however, applaud one long time Unity chapter leader for breaking with the no-dissent tradition and opposing the contract.

You doubt this? Take a look at Urban Ed blog's latest installment where he points to how the anxious Unity gives the impression that they have to sell Yes even to their loyal flock. The Urban Ed blogger recounts anecdotes of confused Unity reps having to consult issues of NY Teacher in order to answer some questions about the contract.

A desperate rush to pass the contract
The presenting of the contract bore repeated hallmarks of a desperate leadership, unconfident of trusting even its leading cadre with contract details. The contract was announced, May 1. President Mulgrew got the Executive Board to vote May 5 to approve the contract, in spite of the fact that the Executive Board had not even read the contract's preliminary Memorandum of Agreement (MoA). The MoA was only released at the close of business May 6, 24 hours before the Delegates Assembly had their special May 7 meeting at the Hilton to vote on the contract. The final MoA was not released until the close of business May 15, and for days the initial MoA was online, instead of the new, expanded MoA. Why cannot the leadership trust the membership with reading the contract? By contrast, in Chicago, teachers were able to pour over and discuss the contract. Here, even the top representatives seem confused by the contract.
To get a sense of just how the Unity caucus -the secretive job machine that runs contract negotiations and everything else in the union-- operates read this piece from ICE. To understand why Unity minions fall into lockstep behind the decisions of the group's elite, one must understand that every member of the caucus must swear by the Unity oath to brook no public dissent. Watch this video of a speech at last month NYSUT assembly by one of MORE's Lauren Cohen, where she cites the Unity loyalty oath (and the union's insistence on winner-take-all elections) as reasons for the UFT's lack of authentic representation of the members. Note the raucous response by the Unity stalwarts, embarrassed that the truth is out.

Deceivious talking points
So we get these incredible talking points that are sounding increasingly desperate. For days the union has been trumpeting the fairy tale myth that a no vote meant going to the back of the line, behind 150 other unions. This is forgetting the fact that the city was simultaneously negotiating several contracts prior to May 1. "We don't want to bankrupt the city." But prior to release of this contract it was known that the city had an ample surplus. Yet that was before this bombshell from the Daily News, "City faces larger budget surpluses in next two years than Mayor de Blasio projects: Independent Budget Office." Then there's this laughable doozy: "The choice is between this deal and no deal. There is no second choice being offered." This opinion never heard of a renegotiated contract, such as in 1995 when the UFT members voted down the contract. Read at the MORE Caucus site, "Some Lessons of Previous Contract Struggles." Part 1 and Part 2.

Lost labor head allegiance; lost member allegiance
Mulgrew with his precedent setting delayed retro and his open door for medical give-backs (the potential for health premium increases is an issue only recently gaining attention, see this story in Capital New York) has burned his bridges with labor leaders that now must negotiate their contracts with this weak precedent. He's burned his bridges with his peers with this contract.
There may be too many bowled over members that already voted Yes for the contract. Yet, when UFT members notice that their paychecks fail to keep pace with inflation then they will realize that their union's Unity leadership sold them a terrible bill of goods. Then over the next two years this contract will be the unraveling of the Unity caucus' stranglehold on the United Federation of Teachers.

Can Cuomo Do Common Core Homework? New York: Parents Launch CCSS Math Homework At Governor – @NYGovCuomo

Originated from conservative site. But they've got a point: can NY Governor Andrew Cuomo do the homework? A panel is needed to review the Common Core. Are you kidding? Any panel of parents can tell you it is nonsense. Make sure to read this analysis at Perdido Street School blog. It turns out that Cuomo packed the panel with Common Core supporters. And, the United Federation of Teachers pres. Michael Mulgrew supports Cuomo's sop to (rightly) disgruntled parents. Teachers across NYS: is this the kind of person you want supplanting current president Dick Iannuzzi with a proxy?
Postscript: the Regents tentatively considered some changes to modify the impact of the Common Core. Common Core Gov. Cuomo went ballistic. The Regents finally reversed on their initial consideration to revise the Common Core impact. Remember, Mulgrew all through this has supported Gov. Cuomo. Read ICEUFT's analysis: Mulgrew's only complaint coming from his simple two sentence analysis is that the Common Core curriculum needs to be sharpened. NYS teachers: your local district leader will be voting in a special assembly in New York City in April. Who do you want charting the future of NYS teacher union politics?: Dick Iannuzzi or Mulgrew's puppet Karen Magee?

New York parents are launching their children’s Common Core math homework – AT Governor Cuomo. Mark Ferreris, a leader in Stop Common Core in New York State, came up with the idea of sending the children’s homework to the Governor. Tired of seeing their children “suffer each night with abusive, age-inappropriate homework that destroys both their self-esteem and their freedom to truly learn,” Ferreris and other organizers planned the campaign and created a public Facebook event page at Stop Common in New York State, set for February 28, 2014: https://www.facebook.com/events/1433445366892441/

New York parents will simply send their child’s homework via email or regular mail to Governor Cuomo. They plan to title each email or tweet: “CAN YOU DO THIS? –Because Our Children Can’t.” 

“Let him get a taste of the suffocating, mind-numbing curriculum that he’s helped shove down our children’s throats which will enslave their impressionable minds….. It’s simple, it’s quick and it’s for YOUR CHILDREN…. Flood him with emails daily or send weekly updates to him,” said organizers.

If you are in New York, here is the contact information for your governor: 

Email: Gov.Cuomo@chamber.state.ny.us

MAIL: Governor Andrew M. Cuomo – Office of the Governor – NYS State Capital Building – Albany, NY 12224 Tweet: @NYGovCuomo
 —————
 Wondering what the homework actually looks like? Here are a few samples.
 EngageNY/Common Core Math Homework
 This one is from a first grade class:


Governor Cuomo, can you do it? The next one is from a kindergarten class. (Where are the plus, minus, or equals signs? What is a “number bond”?)


This next one is for second graders. It could as well be for college students; it makes no sense.


Here’s one for third graders that avoids simplicity and clarity, deliberately:

Update: NYSUT Vote on King: Iannuzzi - 1, Mulgrew - 0 / King/Tisch Declare War on ELA Students

Update: King and Tisch have moved the high-stakes test war on children up a notch. This makes the struggle against King/Cuomo and against Mulgrew all the more urgent. Scroll down for the analysis.

Yeah, OK, so the vote reports nowhere say this is Iannuzzi v. Mulgrew. However, inescapably, the vote represents a repudiation of what New York City teachers union United Federation of Teachers president Michael Mulgrew represents. This is a hopeful hint of shifting winds to come, in the coming battle between Mulgrew and Iannuzzi.

To remind readers, perhaps lost amidst other stories, there were reports of a major event this weekend, the NYSUT board of directors vote on president Iannuzzi's vote of no confidence against New York State Education Department Commissioner John King, as reported in EdNotes and in Valerie Strauss' Answer Sheet column at the Washington Post.

King Jeani XIV, "I am the State Education Department"

The vote set out a vote of no confidence against John King. We can recall no instance of Mulgrew point-blank criticizing King. Rather, the nearest we see is a tepid whine that teachers' Common Core problems will be solved by a beefed up curriculum.

Teachers in New York City and New York State must recognize that there are profound flaws in Michael Mulgrew that are vociferous defenses for the indefensible policies of John King. Perdido Street did some extremely important compilations of old posts that quintessentially capture the nightmarish betrayals that Mulgrew committed against the teachers of New York City. NYS teachers and their representatives would do well to study those missteps with the most exacting attention. See "Oldie But Goodie: Mulgrew "Frightened" By Opposition To Common Core," "Another Oldie But Goodie: Michael Mulgrew On Why John King Was A Great Figure To Impose A NYC Teacher Evaluation System," "And Yet Three More Oldies But Goodies: Michael Mulgrew Defends John King's APPR Teacher Evaluation System."

Update: for an excellent analysis of the behind the facades significance of this battle, see the analysis at the ICEUFT blog, MAKING SOME SENSE OF THE NYSUT LEADERSHIP SPLIT.

Why should NYS teachers and representatives care about what Michael Mulgrew or his proxy Andy Pallotta say or think? Pay close attention to what Mulgrew said for months last year: apologies for some of the worst policies that are destroying teachers' working conditions and their spirits. Reading Mulgrew's words, aren't you unsettled by what Mulgrew did in New York City? Would you for a minute risk his disastrous policies' being shoved over to the rest of New York State?

Heed the words of teachers that quit the profession or write poetry over the destruction of the teaching profession that they once loved. From this blog, last June: "Surveys: teacher morale at record lows; when the profession "no longer exists"; 2013-2014 for NYC teachers under new evaluations"

Given the pressures, is it any wonder that we are seeing plaintive "I Quit" postings on the Internet and on videos going viral? --video resignations like that of history teacher Jerry Conti of Westhill High School (see at right, and see his letter republished at Huffington Post about how testing and number crunching means that the teaching profession "no longer exists"), and the western New York state teacher that penned the "I am a teacher and I am tired" poem, published at the NYSUT blog site. Even principals are quitting over the over-emphasis on tests.

And which teachers union leader clearly has been the figure that has been committed great damage to the teaching profession in New York State? Hmm. Make no mistake, Saturday's NYSUT board vote was not just a repudiation of Comm. King but also a repudiation of Mulgrew who has not stood up to John King in his worsening of teacher working conditions.
Never forget: Mulgrew supports Cuomo. This is a major political point of political dispute between Mulgrew and Iannuzzi. Read on the political urgency to stop Cuomo: The Prime Directive: Stop Cuomo in this post.

 * * *
Postscript:
The prospect of a Michael Mulgrew takeover of NYSUT is ominous for another reason: the fundamentally undemocratic essence of his caucus, the Unity Caucus, which has dominated the UFT for the last 50 years. How can there be democracy in a union body dominated by the Unity caucus, considering the second clause of the Unity caucus' infamous loyalty oath? (Thanks to NYC Educator blog for publishing the oath.):
The Unity caucus loyal oath:

To express criticism of caucus policies within the Caucus;

To support the decisions of Caucus / Union leadership in public or Union forums;

To support in Union elections only those individuals who are endorsed by the Caucus, and to actively campaign for his / her election;

To run for Union office only with the support of the caucus;

To serve, if elected to Union office, in a manner consistent with Union / Caucus policies
and to give full and faithful service in that office; 

Imagine this caucus controlling the state union. It is bad enough already that they control the city union.
 * * *
Postscript:
You know the scene in "The Pianist" when the Germans are in Warsaw, with tanks relentlessly pounding apartment blocks? One blast right after another.

I could not help but think that this is what King and Tisch did with the ELA exam this week. I don't have time to summarize. The story is excellently discussed at NYC Educator here and at Perdido Street here and here.

The ELA Regents test was brutal --a brutal blast. The percentage of students passing will be a record low. What on earth is going on in the minds of King/Tisch? Have they no conscience? Thousands of students will not get their diploma because of this. You can envision that many will get demoralized and not bother to try try again in future ELA Regents.

Think of the state tests last spring and their results. A merciless tank blast at students. Think of the students engaging in self-injury.

Make no mistake: the Regents are declaring war on New York State's schoolchildren.
It might take a few years to replace the Regents and the Common Core. But New York teachers have a moral duty to go against this madness at every opportunity.

Mulgrew has said NOTHING directly critical of King/Tisch. By contrast, we are seeing growing discontent from Iannuzzi and his allies. The coming stand off between the two is a battle with high moral stakes. Teachers are duty-bound to support the Iannuzzi side to reverse this sick trend in education. Parents, citizens, support those teachers and teacher locals that are backing Iannuzzi and opposing Mulgrew. This time it's personal. Your children are at stake.

Additionally, the episode of this week's ELA Regents is a shining example of what is going on in high stakes testing. New York City teachers, parents, concerned citizens, there is an important forum this Saturday on the upper west side on the issue of high stakes testing, More Than a Score: Talking Back to Testing, co-sponsored by the MORE UFT caucus and Change the Stakes. (February 1, 2014 at 11:00 am – 3:00 pm Edward A. Reynolds Westside High School. 140 W 102 St., New York , New York 10025) Attend the conference, get informed, get active.

The children are at stake.

DeBlasio Seeks Pre-K Help, Cuomo Pushes Millionaire Tax Cuts / Why Mulgrew-Iannuzzi NYSUT Battle Matters

*Cuomo pushes tax cut for wealthiest in New York State
*Why is Mulgrew pushing for Cuomo's reelection? *2013: the year of Mulgrew's repeated support for Common Core
That New York Governor Mario Cuomo is dissing new New York City Bill de Blasio already is not news. Straight away he has opposed tax increases for funding universal pre-Kindergarten. Yet, he is ignoring all of the research that has demonstrated the importance of it.
By the way, remember that the MORE caucus came out for universal full day high quality pre-Kindergarten from its beginnings in 2012. So, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) is really Johnny-come-latelies to plug for it on the front page of its latest New York Teacher issue.

In his rebuffing deBlasio is Cuomo breaking from tradition?
As reported in the current issue of "The Chief",

When asked about the Governor's efforts to outmaneuvre him, Mr. de Blasio was polite but firm. "There is a very clear history. The last three mayors went to Albany" and got the tax changes they asked for, he said. "We expect to see continuity."

And yet, we can see cynical maneuvering in Cuomo's attempts to appeal to certain constituencies. He mentioned pre-K in his address to the state. But he did not mention de Blasio's specific proposal and its tax on the wealthiest New Yorkers.

Cuomo pushes tax cut for wealthiest in New York State
New York State is a state with huge disparity in wealth. The wealthy have been coasting along quite easily. Rather than support de Blasio's call for a tax increase on the wealthiest in New York City, Cuomo has done the opposite. "The Chief" reports in the January 17 edition:

*Reduce corporate income taxes to 6.5 percent, the lowest rate since 1968 . . . .
*Increase the threshold for the state inheritance tax from $1 million to $5.25 million, indexed for inflation, and reduce the rate from a maximum of 16 percent to 10 percent.

As Cuomo speaks, Mulgrew beams; Iannuzzi looks stoical

Amidst Mulgrew's support for toxic Cuomo: Critical news on Mulgrew's challenge to Iannuzzi
Yet, UFT president Michael Mulgrew is re-endorsing Gov. Cuomo and is mobilizing the UFT toward that end. Why?! we must ask. Cuomo is complicit on APPR and Common Core State Standards, central causes of woes of teachers across New York State. Cuomo handed full control of New York City's teacher evaluation program to NYSED commissioner John King, all with Mulgrew's enthusiastic endorsement. (This is part of a larger story about how Mulgrew's UFT forces are maneuvering with Andy "Who?" Pallotta as Mulgrew's figure-head for VP against NYSUT President Dick Iannuzzi's slate. Read "Burgeoning NYSUT Civil War" at the PJSTA website and "Looming Battle: Mulgrew vs Iannuzzi For NYSUT Leadership - Split Over Cuomo Endorsement?" at Ed Notes. Pallotta, a Bronx staffer to run against Iannuzzi, now that's transparently Mulgrew's puppet.)
Gov. Cuomo is disingenuously standing on the sidelines amidst the statewide parents' and educators' plaintive plea to remove commissioner King. Cuomo is resisting mayor de Blasio's pre-K program. Cuomo's interest in education "reform" is transparent: he is utterly on the take from education profiteers, e.g., Democrats for Education Reform ($14,000) and Eva Moskowitz's Success Academy charter school chain (four donations from Success PAC to Cuomo in 2011-2012 for his reelection bid, and $400,000 from a cadre of wealthy supporters of the Success chain). Mulgrew's proxy, Pallotta of the Bronx, and Unity-UFT's VP in NYSUT hearts Cuomo so, that he spent $10,000 in NYSUT Committee on Political Education ("COPE") funds, without Iannuzzi's knowledge, on a table at Cuomo's birthday party celebration. See the excellent reporting here at EdNotes and here at Perdido Street School.
So, why is Mulgrew supporting Gov. Cuomo? His predictable "Cuomo is better than any Republican alternative." To this point, we must point out: Common Core didn't start under Pataki, APPR didn't start under Pataki, standing by an aloof, elitist, autocratic education commissioner didn't happen under Pataki. These backward developments in New York State began under Cuomo, with his endorsement.



Centerpiece graphic from NYSUT's website, in advance of its June 8, 2013 rally.
See my earlier post, "The Two New York Teacher Unions and the Significance of Mulgrew/UFT's Ignoring of NYSUT's 6/8 Rally," on how NYSUT's newspaper was touching on a lot of the electric issues for teachers. Meanwhile, all that the UFT would do last spring would be to offer workshops on how to better "align" with the Common Core.
In that post, I highlighted the telling differences between the UFT and NYSUT, as evinced from their respective newspapers.

	NYSUT United	UFT and New York Teacher
Common Core	implicit, critical mention	apologies to the CCSS, the message: just let us get it right next time
High-stakes tests	tests causing near anguish	weaker commentary
Group's stance	as early as 2011, NYSUT challenged the new evaluation system in court	endorse VAM/ test-based evaluations, then gripe over the results
Rally	June 8, dealing with wider range of issues, reaching to the wider community; major push; literature already released, latest issue of paper has stories emphasizing issues attending to in rally promo leaflets	silence on June 8 rally, diversionary June 12 rally*, narrower, dealing with a contract-oriented focus; weaker promotion so far --watch for bland, top-heavy announcements

*It was valid to have a contract rally, but the timing was conveniently distracting from the June 8 NYSUT Albany rally.
"Which side are you on?" Education progress or deform is that essence of education politics today. Iannuzzi, while not perfect, is on the better side on many issues than Mulgrew or Karen Magee (Pres. figurehead on Unity-UFT's slate) and Mulgrew's puppet Pallotta. Iannuzzi spearheaded the massive Albany rally of thousands last June 8, at which (non-NYC) district chapter rank and filers were out in force with home-made signs telling of teachers chafing under paperwork. Iannuzzi more recently, is proposing a NYSUT vote of no confidence against commissioner King. The NYC contingent, the UFT, was next to impossible to find at that rally, and Mulgrew and "Randi" gave the lamest of speeches, weak on specifics and never frontally challenging the core destructive tenets of education "reform." With Mulgrew's non-commitment to mobilizing the UFT for the rally and not alerting the media, is it any wonder that all the media reports from the event were from Rochester, Syracuse and Albany, not the NYC area?

2013: the year of Mulgrew's repeated support for Common Core
Mulgrew is really out of touch on this one.
Apr. 28, in opinion piece in the Daily News supportive of the Common Core, Mulgrew wrote that teachers just needed a more "coherent, detailed curriculum."
Aug. 8, Mulgrew mistated the truth in a "Daily News" editorial, asserting that many teachers wrote the Common Core: "teachers — many of whom helped create the new Common Core . . . " The truth: None of the five authors of the English or Math sections are teachers. Only three teachers served on the validation committee for the Common Core. How is zero "many?"
Oct. 29, Capital New York: Mulgrew repeated his support for "the idea behind the Common Core" and said that withdrawing from the Common Core "would be a real disservice to our children."
Nov. 14, UFT site: "Mulgrew reinterated [sic!] the union's support of the Common Core."
Remember, any UFT assertions of teacher support need to be tempered with knowledge that the national parent federation, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) has received over $5 million from Bill Gates, the sponsor and initiator of the national Common Core standards. Read one New York State principal, Tim Farley's astute analysis of the impact of Gates money on the AFT and teacher practices in implementing the Common Core. See also Mercedes Schneider's "Weingarten Wants Me to Want the Common Core State Standards." Scroll below for the key clincher quotes from principal Farley, regarding Gates' donations and "professional development" for the Common Core.

The bonus pay ruse for merit pay
You would think that there could be bonus combat pay for teachers working in the toughest schools. Alas, that's not what will happen. Actually, the reverse will happen. Cuomo's "bonus pay" plan is patently a merit pay plan sugar-coated for the masses. The problem this time is that with Mulgrew so compliant he'll willingly go along with whatever Andy proposes. What is refreshing is that even the media see through Cuomo to an extent and are calling his plan a merit pay plan. See the Chaz blog article on the issue to see an analysis that directly labels the plan as a merit plan. The major problem is that it is easily manipulated, with the principal assigning the toughest classes to their least favorite teachers and the easiest ones to their pets. Churn that through the value-added modeling ("VAM") sausage machine --that AFT president Randi Weingarten has finally gotten it right on-- and it will be easy to see that the class of 3s will do better than the class of 2s will do worse.

The teachers' referendum on John King
Again, teacher union members must ask Mulgrew and those outside NYC must ask their district leaders, will you join the Syracuse Teachers Association president Kevin Ahern in his supporting Iannuzzi's call for a vote of no confidence against NYSED commissioner John King?

NYSED Commissioner John King; Iannuzzi wants a recall; Cuomo and Mulgrew have yet to critique his style

View these videos, in Mineola, in Poughkeepsie -the short version, the long version, in Buffalo, in Whitesboro, just a sample, of choruses across New York State. Parents, teachers and students have no confidence in John King or the Common Core. Michael Mulgrew, you want to give the pretense of abiding by social justice, then do the right thing and oppose King. Teacher union members, pay close attention when Mulgrew fails to support Iannuzzi's move versus King.

"NYSUT responds to governor's State of the State address:"

ALBANY, N.Y., Jan. 8, 2014 - New York State United Teachers today said Gov. Andrew Cuomo's 2014 State of the State address presented a mixed bag for public schools, colleges and health care - offering a continuation of promising programmatic ideas but raising serious questions about resources.

NYSUT President Richard C. Iannuzzi said the governor's proposal for prekindergarten is "encouraging," but expressed deep concern about the governor's package of proposed tax cuts and the significant omission in the governor's address of the need for a course correction in the implementation of the Common Core. Regarding the governor's proposal on merit pay, Iannuzzi said research shows such programs do not impact student achievement. 

"It is troubling that the most important issue facing students, parents and teachers today - the botched implementation of the Common Core and the need for a moratorium on high-stakes consequences for students and teachers - was absent in the speech," said Iannuzzi. "With all that is on our plate now in public education, to be distracted by a failed concept like merit pay would be a serious mistake."

The NYSUT president also questioned how the state would sustain investments in pre-K, professional development, technology, and in public colleges and universities when the economy is still in recovery and the governor wants to cut $2 billion in needed tax revenue.

"It is difficult to reconcile how the education programs will be paid for, not to mention sustained, when a horrific tax proposal is on the table," Iannuzzi said.

NYSUT Executive Vice President Andrew Pallotta said the governor's education proposals present a "starting point," but the union will await details of the governor's forthcoming executive budget proposal later this month and fight to ensure that adequate funding is allocated for the state's public schools and higher education system.

"NYSUT has long been a strong proponent of universal pre-K and the union is pleased the governor considers it a priority. Now, the state must provide the resources necessary to make it a reality so all of our children are given a strong foundation for academic success," Pallotta said. "We look forward to working with the governor and Legislature to carve out a legislative agenda and budget that meets the needs of students, parents and teachers."

*Tim Farley's closing comments to his "AFT Is Wrong about the Common Core":

TRUTH: AFT polled 800 teachers. (I strongly recommend you read this: (http://www.aft.org/newspubs/press/2013/050313.cfm) to see all of the results that AFT left out. NEA’s poll surveyed 1200 teachers. Again, please read the full survey results to see what data was left out (http://neatoday.org/2013/09/12/nea-poll-majority-of-educators-support-the-common-core-state-standards/).

Part of the information from these two polls that AFT neglected to print was that teachers overwhelmingly support a moratorium on the student test results being tied to their effectiveness rating. The other piece that was left out was that most teachers felt that they did not receive enough “training” for the implementation of CC. The large sums of money from Gates to NEA, AFT, and NYSUT were earmarked for Teacher Professional Development. I have two questions. One, why are Teachers’ Unions receiving money to provide professional development? Isn’t that the job of the school districts? Also, since they have received so much money for this purpose, why don’t teachers feel that they haven’t had enough training?

Lastly, my question to AFT is, “Whom do you represent, Bill Gates or your teachers?” You cannot have it both ways.

Thanks,

Tim Farley

Kinderhook, NY

The AFT link reveals:

*74 percent are worried that the new assessments will begin—and students, teachers and schools will be held accountable for the results—before everyone involved understands the new standards and before instruction has been fully implemented with the standards.
*83 percent support a moratorium on consequences for students, teachers and schools until the standards and related assessments have been fully in use for one year.
*27 percent said their school district has provided them with all or most of the resources and tools they need to successfully teach the standards.
*78 percent of teachers in low-performing schools said they have been given just some, few or no resources. *53 percent said they have received either no training or inadequate training to help prepare them to teach to the standards.

Wow. Talk about Weingarten's selective reporting of statistics.

The NEA link reveals:

*65 percent have participated in a Common Core training session, but just 26 percent said the trainings were helpful.
. . .
*Educators also pinpointed other factors that would help students learn the new standards. Forty-three percent cited smaller class size, 39 percent suggested greater parental involvement, and 22 percent said students need up-to-date books and materials.

PARCC Common Core test tricks and the secrecy of the tests

*Common Core corporate tie-ins *PARCC test question secrecy *inBloom and data mining controversies *The silence of the unions in the face of test questions secrecy

The Common Core is a private entity, created by in a secretive process by a non-governmental entity, detailed here, replete with copyrights, and a seeming tie-in for two of the best connected publishers, McGraw Hill and Pearson.

Diane Ravitch mentions in "What is the Goal of Common Core testing?" that Rick Hess predicts that Common Core States Standards anxiety, prompting some parents "to demand “reforms” and an escape from their neighborhood schools." As she says, reformers will gloat over failing scores (no doubt to continue the "failing schools" line --schools that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo now says deserves the "death penalty").

So, is it any wonder that the Common Core associated interstate assessment (the 21st century edujargon for testing) consortia (the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)) are playing games with letting the public see the tests and their questions? After all, when such tests were under state production, teachers could retain copies of past tests and use them for preparing students for the tests. If the tests are all important, wouldn't that be fair all around, for teachers and students, so that all could excel?

Not so in the world of private test production.
The PARCC consortium made a big media splash on August 19, saying that it was making some questions public. The tricky thing is that meant just a couple of questions per grade, not entire tests. Not the self-congratulating press release, making an appearance of transparency: PARCC Releases New Sample Items. Yet the PARCC site purported to carry the questions actually contains carries a very scant sample of questions. Note further, that when you click on some of the links you get disclaimers that you are clicking away from a site under the authority of PARCC. This is another indication that as you privatize the test production you get less and less transparency. Seasoned veteran teachers will recall that in the not-too distant past you could access state tests for your grade or discipline. Interesting: teachers are expected to teach to the test, yet, they are now blocked from seeing past tests.
All the PARCC issues are leading states to bail out, so far: Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Pennsylvania (PA is remaining in the consortium, but will not use the test); and Oklahoma has withdrawn for 2014.

This essential statement came up at an August 14 recent Diane Ravitch blogpost, "NY Regents: Release the Test Questions!"

And when my own students do poorly on a test I created, I take a closer look at the test items and try to understand why they got the questions wrong – perhaps I made a bogus test – it’s happened to every educator out there. We won’t be able to do that here. Could it be that these kids didn’t really get all that much wrong? Or is it that the construction of the test items were so riddled with ambiguity and multiple correct responses that they don’t want us to see what a poorly crafted instrument it was? Or, perhaps it is because they tested 4th graders with 7th grade materials?

The timing is a little suspect. Could this be happening to mollify the growing uproar following the August 7, 2013 release of disastrous New York State test results from Common Core-aligned tests?

THE DATA MINING TIE-IN: STUDENT LONGITUDINAL DATABASES:
Take note of how so many of the up-front organizations PARCC and SBAC are non-profit. This distracts us from the fact that with little transparency or explanation, the two consortia have benefited generously from the government monies to create the tests: all together, the consortia received $346 million in federal education grants.
Not too far behind the veneer of the myriad of the non-profits, PARCC, SBAC, inBloom, are corporations profiting from the test creation, administration and data mining and storage.
Such is the case with inBloom, the designated company originally for nine states, now only New York, to mine and store data. Technically, it is a non-profit with ample Gates Foundation money; however, it is operated by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation’s Amplify Education. Parents are uncomfortable with the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS, the controversial student data mines). The SLDS is an integral part of the multi-state usage of Common Core, and is another dictate from Arne Duncan's Race to the Top program. The primary informational technology person at inBloom has confirmed that the child's Social Security number is the primary element for accessing student data.
Stephanie Simon reported in Reuters, "School database loses backers as parents balk over privacy," revealing how “officials in several states [are] backing away from the project amid protests from irate parents.”  More specifically, “Kentucky, Georgia and Delaware - all initially listed as partners on the inBloom website - told Reuters that they never made a commitment and have no intention of participating. Georgia specifically asked for its name to be removed.” Massachusetts and North Carolina are said to be seriously reconsidering their involvement as well.

BLOWBACK OF TEST SECRECY
We see that this permanent war against teachers economy, just as the military has had "black budget items," items that were kept secret, "for the good of the people," we have Common Core questions that are kept secret-- NY's State Education Department is only selectively disclosing some questions. Since the government cannot use the national security excuse, what excuse could they use? -Corporate private security or copyright. Baloney. The real reason is that the tricky questions hello will expose what illogical, inappropriate questions the Common Cores brings into English and math, as At the Chalk Face reports. The blog site reports several substantive issues with the Common Core questions. This is the negative consequence of privatization of test publishing functions by the international corporate giant, Pearson PLC, away from what historically had been a public function under the aegis of the New York State Education Department.

However, from the organization that we would expect to hear much criticism, the United Federation of Teachers, whose members were in touch with the tests, we have heard limited anecdotes exact questions creating the trouble (any wonder there's a government ban on publicizing the questions under threat of firing or suspension of teachers), mixed with praise for the Common Core, as indicated in this April op-ed column in the Daily News from the UFT president, Michael Mulgrew. The leader mentioned the lack of a curriculum, the fact that test prep is not teaching and that teachers are over-burdened with paperwork. Contrast this limited critique with the multiple details from the Chalk Face blog a week earlier.
This is reflection, once again, of the detachment of the union leadership from rank and file (regular non-officials) teachers on the ground. Otherwise, we would have heard fire and this depth of detail from Mulgrew, and probably less enthusiasm for the Common Core, and even better yet, a statement on how the Common Core as dictated, leads to more micromanaging of teaching, and diversion of English teachers away from features that excited them about the subject, such as narrative expression or literature. Alas, is there any wonder why the union leaders are uncritical cheerleaders for the Common Core? As revealed in the deutsch29 blog, Bill Gates gave $5.4 million to the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), which has a symbiotic relationship with the UFT, and $6.3 million to the National Education Association (NEA).

Mulgrew's Forked Tongue and How Far Will Mulgrew Capitulate to NYS on Evaluations?

Wed Night at the Ed Blogs: How Far Will Mulgrew Capitulate to NYS on Evaluations?

Perdido Street wrote of UFT president Michael Mulgrew that has given his assent to the idea of Governor Andrew Cuomo resolving the evaluation impasse between the New York City Department of Education and the United Federation of Teachers. But we need some clarity, both in terms of understanding what Cuomo is proposing, and in terms of what UFT president Michael Mulgrew is agreeing to.

1) Cuomo said that the state, meaning his State Department of Education, will impose an evaluation system. Note how this is being reported, not just at the Perdido Street blog, but by the major news outlets, this excerpt from the WNBC-TV site:

"The impasse must be resolved," the Democratic governor said Wednesday. He would direct the state Education Department to devise a system, then impose it on New York City's 75,000 teachers.

2) Mulgrew, on the other hand is casting the state role as simply being the arbitrator. Note what he is saying in his Dear James letter, re-printed at the ICE blog:

Governor Cuomo said today that if the city won’t come to a teacher evaluation agreement with the UFT by a set date, he will direct the State Education Department to set up a binding arbitration process that will get us to an agreement.

So, critically, Mulgrew is speaking with a forked tongue. For Albany and media consumption, he is saying that he is alright with a Cuomo initiative on this. Yet, to his Chapter Leaders, he is stating that Cuomo is merely sustaining the collective bargaining process. Mulgrew, you cannot have it both ways, an executive decision, imposed by fiat, and a collective bargaining process. In classic fashion, in his erstwhile defense of the Value-added-based evaluation system as being good for the children, Mulgrew is absorbing the UFT into the chorus pushing for evaluation “reform.”

Accountable Talk had a very good critique of the significance of Cuomo's mistake and the UFT's responsibility going forward.

But Governor Cuomo said today that he might just push an evaluation system through the legislature and impose it on NYC by fiat. In other words, Cuomo said he is willing to override the agreement we came to via collective bargaining, which was no agreement. This is in direct contradiction to the framework to which he and the union agreed last year.
The UFT should be up in arms about this. Our Unity leadership should point out that collective bargaining yielded no agreement, despite the fact that they were willing to meet the city more than halfway. Unity should be fighting to uphold the integrity of collective bargaining, the one essential element of this evaluation framework.

(Accountable Talk also upbraided Mulgrew for his capitulation to Cuomo's takeover stratagem.)

Democratic deformers, in the body of DFER and E4E having the ear of Cuomo? Prior to Cuomo's proposing the state takeover of the process, the Democratic deform lobby, as Gotham Schools reported, first pushed this takeover:

It’s not the first time that a state takeover in evaluation planning was floated. Last year, more than a dozen education reform groups, including StudentsFirst and Democrats for Education Reform, asked Cuomo to give the state authority to adopt a default plan for districts that didn’t have a deal in place by a certain deadline. More recently, groups that have spent months lobbying locally for a deal have given up hope and called on Cuomo’s intervention.

Of course, Mulgrew would be relieved to have Cuomo resolve this conflict. Then he wouldn't have to take personal responsibility and worry about the growing number of MORE supporters rallying outside UFT headquarters. Thus, we must say, No to Mulgrew's capitulation to the high-stakes test-based evaluation juggernaut. As EdNotes says, this is Petainesque capitulation to discredited junk science. The ICE-UFT blog has made the added point that the deeply problematic Danielson Frameworks are being snuck in (outside of membership-approved collective bargaining, and via another Unity-pushed capitulation, we might add --see this ICE-UFT post) across the city, and that we should be mobilizing the UFT membership.

Show us the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)! No to secret negotiations and agreements. Let the members vote on the evaluation system. No concession to state-imposed replacements for collective bargaining! Sign the Change.org petition to the NYC DOE and the UFT to Show Us the MOU (on the evaluation system).

A new teacher evaluation needs to be fair and be a source of support to the classroom.

On January 17, 2013 United Federation of Teachers President Michael Mulgrew stated "last night our negotiators had reached an agreement — but Mayor Bloomberg blew the deal up in the early hours today." What were the details of that agreement that was supposedly reached?

Mayor Bloomberg responded there “were unreasonable demands being made by the United Federation of Teachers. Among the contentious issues was the union’s demands that the evaluation deal sunset in June of 2015." What were the other demands and issues?

Leo Casey, negotiating for the UFT, wrote on edwize.org “During the last week, as the UFT and the DOE met long into the night in an effort to reach agreement on the terms of the MOU, we asked, again and again, more insistently at each turn, to see the DOE’s draft of their application. It was not until late into Wednesday evening, barely 24 hours before the deadline, that the DOE finally gave us their draft of the application. When we read the draft, it quickly became apparent why they had resisted sharing it with us. Included in the draft were numerous scoring tables and conversion charts which the UFT was now seeing for the very first time. These tables and charts were very important: embedded in them were fundamental decisions about the shape of the evaluation system.“ What are the details of the scoring tables and conversion charts?

Why won't the DOE and UFT share the details of what each side is proposing? The teachers, students and parents deserve better than to be kept in the dark.

Show us what's on the table. Show us the MOU.

-Movement of Rank and File Educators www.morecaucusnyc.org

"I believe if teacher accountability & evaluation is so important in this day and age, then so should transparency be for any deals being discussed by the DoE and UFT. NYC parents deserve at least that because of the effect on their children." --One Queens commenter at the petition site.
UFT members should expect MORE.

UPDATE:
MORE Caucus' statement on Mulgrew's cave-in to Governor Cuomo on evaluations:

Mulgrew Surrenders OUR Collective Bargaining Rights

In a recent email to chapter leaders, Michael Mulgrew stated that he welcomes Governor Cuomo’s involvement in forcing an evaluation system on NYC teachers. At a time when teachers are under attack from many quarters, it seems inconceivable that the UFT leadership would cede its bargaining power to the State Education Department. Mulgrew expressed his relief that should talks once again stall, the governor and the SED, “people who actually understand education”, will be involved. Our teachers, the ones who really understand education, will be left out of the decision making process.

We should remember that it was Mulgrew’s willingness to sign on to the state’s Race to the Top application that got us here in the first place. The UFT agreed to allow teachers to be evaluated by student test data in exchange for a promise of $700 million which has yet to reach city classrooms.

We at MORE categorically oppose any evaluation system that includes flawed student test data as a component. We also reject the virtual elimination of tenure that would result from the proposed evaluation system, in which teachers would be presumed incompetent based on that faulty data.

Mulgrew also states in his letter that we need this agreement so that we will not “risk further loss of state money.” In truth, the state is under no obligation to withhold any funds and is only doing so to force an agreement. Worse still, the state has threatened to take Title I funds from our neediest students in the absence of a deal, showing their contempt for students as well as teachers. Rather than submit to such blatant blackmail, the UFT should be rallying against attempts to rob our poorest children for the sake of pleasing education reformers.

Furthermore, the UFT has sent out District Representatives to schools claiming that not enough teachers are found unsatisfactory [first reported in "On the Coming Teacher Evaluation Sell-Out," December 7, 2012 at Accountable Talk blog] and “that has to change.” If the purpose of the new evaluation deal is to help teachers improve and “help teachers help students”, as Mulgrew claims in his letter, it should be focused on giving support to teachers, not on getting them terminated. It is MORE’s position that it is the union’s obligation to protect its members. We should not collaborate with the city in its attempts to fire teachers at will, nor cede our power to the state. Any data driven evaluation system coupled with a weakening of tenure will surely lead to more firings.

It should also be remembered that any new evaluation agreement was supposed to be coupled with a new contract. Not only have teachers been without a contract or a raise since 2009, but this latest capitulation by the UFT basically gives away our strongest bargaining chip in our ongoing contract negotiations.

If there is to be a new evaluation system, it must be fair and ensure the rights of teachers. It should be collectively bargained and subject to the vote of the full membership as dictated by the law. We, the teachers of the UFT, are the ones who “really understand education” so we must be fully engaged in any process that will impact our practice and our profession.

We should not submit to blackmail or an assault on our collective bargaining rights.

Read MORE's platform; and its Vision Statement on Positive Alternative Leadership.

For more behind the issues in the value-added factors and links to analyses detailing the junk science features, see the post earlier two weeks ago, "One Thousand Evaluation Petition-Signing Teachers Can't Be Wrong --The Real Story Behind the Evaluation Talks Collapse."