Showing posts with label New York State United Teachers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label New York State United Teachers. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

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.

Friday, August 1, 2014

Getting to be MorelandGate as Bharara Threatens Cuomo with Investigation over Corruption Commission Tampering

*Now political summer 2014 heats up *US Prosecutor Preet Bharara warns Cuomo 
*Cuomo ad blitz right before Times piece on corruption probe
*Lotsa Dem Party cash went to pump up Cuomo --Did any of that come out of UFT/NYSUT COPE funds???  
*Green Party gubernatorial nominee calls for criminal investigation of Cuomo and Moreland
*Republican Party nominee asks, "Where is Andrew?"
2014 has been a dull summer in New York State news. By contrast, 2010 had the struggle over Race to the Top, showing New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and United Federation of Teachers President Michael Mulgrew bowing before (and caving in to) Bill Gates' Common Core State Standards. With U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara's threat to investigate Cuomo over possible obstruction of justice or witness tampering, [July 31]this could tarnish Cuomo's reputation and grab increasingly negative attention. Talking Points Memo reported on the same story with this digest, "NYT: U.S. Attorney Tells Cuomo To Back Off Witnesses In Ethics Probe."

Cuomo has chugged along as Cuomo the invincible as he made parents' heads explode with his see/hear/say no evil approach to inBloom [the failed plan to siphon tons of private data on schoolkids to the state government and who knows how many corporate education companies] or Common Core, and as he gratuitously shut down the [state corruption investigating] Moreland Commission because "It's not a legal question" and because "It's my commission."  Read Daily Kos on Cuomo's power grab tone.

So now as July closes we get the big New York Times story, U.S. Department of Justice Attorney Preet Bharara. (Credit to DemocraticUnderground posters for the NYT and Cap NY links below.)

U.S. Attorney Warns Cuomo on [Moreland Commission] Ethics Case

From the Times:
In an escalation of the confrontation between the United States attorney in Manhattan, Preet Bharara, and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo over the governor’s cancellation of his own anticorruption commission, Mr. Bharara has threatened to investigate the Cuomo administration for possible obstruction of justice or witness tampering.
The warning, in a sharply worded letter from Mr. Bharara’s office, came after several members of the panel issued public statements defending the governor’s handling of the panel, known as the Moreland Commission, which Mr. Cuomo created last year with promises of cleaning up corruption in state politics but shut down abruptly in March.
Click here for the full Times story. And gratuitiously there was lots of Democratic Party cash going into a Cuomo campaign ad bltiz right before the Times hit last Wednesday, "Cuomo’s Office Hobbled Ethics Inquiries by Moreland Commission," as Capital New York reported:

Democrats ramped up ads as Cuomo girded for Times hit

Capital New York reported, as noted in the above link, that the New York State Democratic Campaign Committee began buying $281,655 worth of advertizing time on July 19, the day after Cuomo sent off a turgid 13 page missive [Cap NY gave a link for that letter to the Times site, but apparently the Times does not have that letter on its site at this point] to Times reporters working on the story. It is no wonder that campaignmoney.org reported July 24, "New York Newspapers 'Front Page' Gov. Cuomo Moreland Commission Scandal." The site listed 13 upstate newspapers' reactions after reporting,
The New York Times published ["Cuomo’s Office Hobbled Ethics Inquiries by Moreland Commission"] a bombshell investigation yesterday into Gov. Andrew Cuomo's meddling in the affairs of the anti-corruption Moreland Commission he created. This morning, New Yorkers across the state woke up to the story splashed across newspaper front pages with headlines like "Did Cuomo cross line?," "Specter of conflict haunting Cuomo," and "Gov. Cuomo under fire."
Like Cuomo needed the money! Take a look at this post at Diane Ravitch's blog, "Billionaires Rule! How Governor Cuomo and Hedge Fund Managers Protected Charter Schools," April 13, on Cuomo's charter school friends.
According to campaign finance records, Mr. Cuomo’s re-election campaign has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from charter school supporters, including William A. Ackman, Carl C. Icahn, Bruce Kovner and Daniel Nir.
Kenneth G. Langone, a founder of Home Depot who sits on a prominent charter school board, gave $50,000 to Mr. Cuomo’s campaign last year. He said that when the governor asked him to lead a group of Republicans supporting his re-election, he agreed because of Mr. Cuomo’s support for charter schools.
That Ken Langone is the same character that made an Adolf Hitler-Barack Obama analogy, the same fellow that is a top Chris Christie donor and the same fellow that says that Pope Francis' criticisms of capitalism could cause the wealthy to scale back their donations to the Catholic Church.
They can laugh now, the corruption probes haven't finished their work.

And as ProPublica reported, Cuomo has raised millions in campaign donations through a loophole that he promised to close.

Now we get to the question, how much UFT or (now Mulgrew-controlled) NYSUT Committee on Political Education (COPE) money has gone to Cuomo in recent weeks? It is not out of the realm of possibility, for Mulgrew's proxy Andy Pallotta spent $10,000 on an entire table at Cuomo's birthday fundraiser.

Cuomo's opponents have been quick to respond. Green Party nominee for governor Howie Hawkins responded on July 27:
Today's New York Times article on the Moreland Commission is a disturbing documentation of the ongoing efforts by Governor Cuomo and his staff to prevent an independent investigation into corruption at the State Capitol. Mr. Cuomo's behavior, including deceiving the public as to the workings of the Commission, falls far short of the minimum ethical standards for the highest elected official in our state.
Even the Commission's one watered down report stated that state government is “a pay-to-play political culture driven by large checks." Cuomo is the kingpin of that domain, as his $40 million plus election war chest highlights. Cuomo and his staff however ensured that key issues that would reflect badly on him were stricken from the report, especially information that investigators had learned about the powerful Real Estate Board of New York and its political donations.
While we are encouraged that the US Attorney has picked up investigations dropped by Cuomo's disbanding of the Commission, this story makes clear the urgent need for an independent criminal and ethical investigation of the activities of Mr. Cuomo, starting with the enormous amount of massive campaign contributions he has raised during his tenure. This investigation needs to examine the funds that Governor has raised - and spent - for various party and independent committees that he has controlled, as well as the potential misuse of public funds to promote his candidacy.
As I have pointed out in this and prior campaigns, it is impossible for politicians to effectively investigate themselves. That is why I have called for non lawmakers to control bodies such as JCOPE [NYS Joint Commission on Public Ethics].
More recently, Hawkins weighed in on the developing MorlandGate mess with his statement approval of U.S. Attorney Bharara's involvement. Earlier in July Hawkins noted the declining standardshttp://www.howiehawkins.org/clean_up_albany_corruption for political behavior in our times,
"While Watergate is viewed as our generation's greatest political scandal, the reality is that the morals of political officials have dramatically declined since then. Behavior considered shocking by public officials 40 years ago is now treated as routine. The great shift in wealth to the very rich over the last forty years has gone hand and hand with the perception by lawmakers that they are entitled to treat public service as a license to enrich themselves," said Hawkins.
Republican Party nominee for governor Rob Astorino released a video, "Where is Andrew?" The video ad advises viewers to "Call 1-800-Moreland."

So there you have it: Cuomo has a lot of explaining to do: why did he close the Moreland Commission? Another point: why is the now Mulgrew-controlled NYSUT or any other unions bothering to shell out thousands for such politician that is cozy with the privatizers, the hedge funders? --and a politician that we might add is possibly a bit crooked.

At the very least, regardless of how far Bharara can get with investigating Cuomo, the governor's rapacious greed for money and power look too tactless for someone with presidential ambitions. Serious donors will go to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race, should he attempt to run. And both Clinton and Republican contenders will be easily able to tarnish Cuomo with the Curroptmo tag.

For a reminder of how this is a governor more concerned with catering to the one percent than in helping ''working families'' read my post this January, "DeBlasio Seeks Pre-K Help, Cuomo Pushes Millionaire Tax Cuts / Why Mulgrew-Iannuzzi NYSUT Battle Matters."

For the best on-going coverage of Cuomo and his manipulation of the Moreland Commission, regularly visit Perdido Street School blog. e.g., His latest post has the important news that "Daily News Reports That Andrew Cuomo Has 'Lawyered Up'." Cuomo has hired a top criminal defense attorney and his top aides have hired their own personal attorneys. Yes, the political summer is heating up.

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

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.

    Tuesday, January 21, 2014

    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
    RallyJune 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 leafletssilence 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.

    Monday, June 3, 2013

    MORE Caucus (UFT) Responds to State Imposed Teacher Evaluation Plan, Cites Coordinated Grievance Campaign

    GOTHAM SCHOOLS NOTES MORE'S COORDINATED GRIEVANCE CAMPAIGN - THE UFT MAY HAVE LET YOU DOWN; MORE IS THERE TO HELP

    UFT president Michael Mulgrew endorsed a state-imposed evaluation system; what a mistake --look what we've got:
    Mulgrew is perennially assuaging the UFT's members, saying that things could be worse than whatever bad deal the UFT leadership has agreed to. Wrong, this is worse than other systems in the state. As MORE says in their statement, Mulgrew is claiming victory in the face of defeat. Bloomberg advisor Howard Wolfson openly gloated on Twitter, that the UFT was “shut out on nearly all their demands.”
    This system makes New York City join Syracuse as the only one school systems to experiment with student surveys for evaluating teachers.
    Insights arising from the Movement of Rank and File Educators' (MORE-UFT) incisive analysis of the NYS Regents-imposed teacher evaluation system (published in full below) and MORE’s Facebook page:

    *This scheme operates by the state education law 3012-c whereby a teacher is assumed guilty, as the teacher must prove their innocence, reversing the American system’s presumption of innocence.

    *It is difficult to believe Mulgrew’s contention that this is about supporting teachers. Mulgrew has added his disingenuous spin, “Here is the bottom line: The new teacher evaluation system is designed to support, not punish, teachers and to help them develop throughout their careers. That is what we will be fighting for as this plan is implemented.” The lack of pre- and post-observations will mean rash observations by administrators that are uninformed of the entire context of lessons. On the MORE Facebook page, MORE points out that the new system’s removal of the post-observation strikes away the pretense that this evaluation system is constructive, to help teachers and their craft.

    *The new system will lead to teachers teaching to a rubric. The Common Core and the Danielson system are ones “that have no scientific evidence of increasing learning."

    *The New York City system, in contrast to other municipalities, is effective for at least four years; whereas many other municipalities expire after one year. As MORE points out, “can only be re-negotiated in collective bargaining within the framework of State Education Law 3012-c.”

    -> The UFT may have let teachers down; but MORE will be there to help you: MORE will have a coordinated grievance campaign in the fall: Note MORE's statement in the What Now? section of their response: A coordinated grievance campaign around particular issues of implementation can help us make the most of the 15 extra arbitration days to deal with systemic abuses. MORE will be campaigning in the fall to organize and train chapter leaders, delegates and school activists to be effective in defending their colleagues and organizing strong chapters. Kudos to Gotham Schools for running this point in tweet on MORE's response.
    -> Wondering how teachers in other New York State cities and towns are faring with their Albany-compliant systems? Want to express your discontent to NYSED or the Cuomo administration for Race to the Top which carried so many elements driving this change (mandating unrealistice evaluation metrics in the new Annual Professional Performance Review [APPR], the Common Core, Value-Added Modeling [VAM])?
    Go to Albany, June 8, the rally that the UFT is afraid to publicize, lest NYC teachers learn how much worse their system is, and how teachers are already experiencing tough evaluation systems. (Notice how the May 30 NY Teacher (UFT) does not mention it; but the June edition of NYSUT United has promotion of the rally on the front cover. Some of the stories in NYSUT's paper: "National momentum grows to put a brake on high stakes," "'The sickest testing story of all time'," "School boards agree: Obsession with testing taking toll," "Educators push back on testing.")
    UFT Rank and File Says King’s Evaluation Plan Bad for Teachers, Students
    While Micheal Mulgrew launches a campaign to convince the membership that the new teacher evaluation system is designed to help teachers improve and give them a professional voice, Bloomberg is proclaiming victory. The truth of the matter is, this evaluation system is bad for educators and the children they serve: the system requires a tremendous amount of additional work with no compensation, time or otherwise. It will create an even greater climate of fear and effectively ends tenure as we know it; putting all educators who partner with parents to advocate for the best policies for children at risk. This system places too much value on testing and is flawed in its high stakes premise. Educators are best positioned to evaluate and assess our students and teachers, not imposed tests, not junk science, not pre-packaged rubrics.
    Julie Cavanagh, Elementary School Teacher & Chapter Leader P.S. 15 Brooklyn
    The day has finally come. State Education Commissioner John King has imposed a new teacher evaluation deal on New York City. UFT president Michael Mulgrew's attempts to claim a victory in the face of defeat are hardly convincing. In his letter to the membership Mulgrew says “Here is the bottom line: The new teacher evaluation system is designed to support, not punish, teachers and to help them develop throughout their careers. That is what we will be fighting for as this plan is implemented.” Given the enormous amount of money the DOE has spent trying to fire our colleagues over the last few years, it's credulous to suggest that this system will be about “supporting” teachers. The media has honed in on the point that Mulgrew wants to avoid: tenure has been seriously weakened, and it will be easier to fire teachers who are seen as “ineffective” based on flawed standardized tests.

    We knew already from State Education Law 3012-c, which was supported by the UFT leadership as part of Race to the Top, that two years of ineffective ratings means a teacher is presumed to be incompetent. In the new termination process for tenured teachers, the burden of proof will shift to the teacher, unlike the current system where the burden of proof is on the Department of Education to prove incompetence. [1]

    King's release states: “Teachers rated ineffective on student performance based on objective assessments must be rated ineffective overall. Teachers who are developing or ineffective will get assistance and support to improve performance. Teachers who remain ineffective can be removed from classrooms." In other words, there will be more testing for our students and tests will be the ultimate determinant of a teacher's effectiveness. According to the outline of the plan, "Each school will have a committee comprised of an equal number of teachers and administrators who will determine, along with the principal, which assessments each school will use," however the plan states that principals may reject this committee's recommendations and apply their own default measures. In many schools, this is exactly what will happen.

    Only 13 percent of all ineffective ratings each year can be challenged on grounds of harassment or other matters not related to job performance. Is the UFT comfortable trusting that the other 87% of ratings of "ineffective" will be based solely on teacher performance? Given the new principals Tweed is pumping out of the Principal's Academy and their "fire your way to success" mentality, our union leadership has left us in an extremely dangerous situation.

    The union leadership is pleased that the rating system will be using "the complete Danielson rubric, with all 22 points.” The potential for abuse of this complex and multifaceted rubric is enormous.

    "This system will lead to educators teaching to a rubric," says Mike Schirtzer, UFT Delegate at Leon M. Goldstein High School in Brooklyn. "Pedagogy is a craft which no two teachers do the same, yet can still be equally effective. This new scheme will limit teachers creativity in the classroom and our ability to differentiate styles in order to reach a diverse set of learners. Our greatest concern is the amount of time this will take from teachers to properly prepare for their classes, due to all of the assessments and/or SLO's that need to be created, the committees need to be formed and countless hours of professional development dedicated to Common Core and Danielson, two directives that have no scientific evidence of increasing learning."

    In addition to the onerous micromanagement of the Danielson rubric, observations will be more frequent and at least one will be an unannounced observation. This is problematic, as without pre- and post-observation conferences, administrators will likely be unaware what scaffolding the teacher has done beforehand, and are likely to penalize teachers because they don't have this information. Mulgrew says this is not a “gotcha” system, but in practice it most certainly will be.
    The new system also includes a pilot of student surveys. This encourages grade-inflation and a lack of discipline in the classroom. Research shows that student surveys don't work in high-stakes settings. The use of such surveys poisons the relationships between teachers and students, who now in addition to their test scores bear even more responsibility for the future of their teachers' careers.
    Crucially, this agreement will not include a sunset provision, unlike districts in other parts of the state. The sunset provision was a key sticking point in negotiations, as the UFT was hoping it would be able to renegotiate the terms of this plan under a new and presumably friendlier mayor. The current deal is in place for the next four years at least, and can only be re-negotiated in collective bargaining within the framework of State Education Law 3012-c.

    The mayor and his henchmen have been gloating effusively. The mayor's statement said “Commissioner King has sided with our children on nearly every major point of disagreement we had with the UFT’s leadership, while also rejecting the UFT’s long-held demand for a sunset provision.” Dennis Walcott said he was extremely pleased with the commissioner’s announcement today and we look forward to implementing it.” Bloomberg advisor Howard Wolfson bragged on Twitter that the UFT was “shut out on nearly all their demands.” No matter how the UFT leadership tries to spin it, this is a major defeat for teachers and students.

    What Now?

    The dropoff in voter turnout in the recent UFT election was already a sign of a disengaged and passive membership. The new evaluation system and the way it was imposed are likely to further demoralize the rank-and-file and increase their cynicism toward the union. The UFT surrendered our collective bargaining rights by turning over the key issue in the next contract to the State Education Department, calling for a biased state official to impose evaluations on us.
    MORE campaigned for a membership vote on this evaluation system, and presented a petition with over 1,000 signatures to the December Delegate Assembly. Unity opposed submitting this to the membership since they knew it would be deeply unpopular. The fact that this has instead been imposed by the State Education Department means Mulgrew and the Unity leadership will have an alibi for what will now certainly be a deeply concessionary contract. We must expose the leadership's circumvention of membership in this process, and their contempt for the voices of their rank-and-file.
    June 12 will be the day that city workers come together to demand fair contracts. In light of the new evaluation system, one wonders what's left to negotiate. The key concessions, the biggest change to our working conditions in at least a generation, are already in place. It will be crucial for UFT members to attend and discuss the magnitude of this sell-out, and the undemocratic way in which it was imposed on us. Our next contract will inevitably include the new evaluation system. It will also be the first time in this process that the membership has been consulted at all. A campaign to vote no on this contract would send a signal to the leadership that the membership rejects this plan.
    Everybody agrees that the key to this will be implementation. Teachers must build active chapters that can be vigilant in calling out abuse of the new system. A coordinated grievance campaign around particular issues of implementation can help us make the most of the 15 extra arbitration days to deal with systemic abuses. MORE will be campaigning in the fall to organize and train chapter leaders, delegates and school activists to be effective in defending their colleagues and organizing strong chapters.

    Teachers also need to unite with students and parents to call for an end to the high stakes testing regime that is central to this new evaluation system. Students will now not only be taking high stakes state tests or PARCC assessments*, but also regular "performance assessments" designed to assess teacher effectiveness. Campaigns like the MAP test boycott in Seattle show the power of a community uniting to fight the standardized testing regime.

    What this whole sad story tells us is that we can't rely on our union leaders to deliver on our behalf. They have conceded everything, and may now even prove unable to win us retroactive pay for the years we've spent without a contract. It's only by rebuilding the union from the bottom up, school by school, classroom by classroom, that we will begin to stand up to the corporate assault on our schools. MORE is dedicated to a different kind of union, one where democracy and accountability replace backroom deals, where the members make the decisions that matter in their professional lives. Join us!

    [1] If a DOE-appointed validator disagrees with the principal’s rating, the DOE keep burden of proof. However, validators are likely to be retired principals, ain the PEP+ system, which is currently used to help fire teachers.
    Visit MORE CAUCUS NYC AT morecaucusnyc.org.

    *For some criticisms of Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers, PARCC, see here and here.
    (SLO: Student Learning Objectives.)

    Thursday, May 30, 2013

    Buffalo Teachers Fed.'s Evaluations Suit - MOU Too Embarrassing for Mulgrew to Let NYC Teachers See

    BUFFALO TEACHERS FEDERATION SUIT OVER PUNITIVE EVALUATIONS - CONTRAST TO UFT ENDORSEMENT OF PUNITIVE SYSTEM - EMBARRASSING TO MULGREW WHO'S IGNORED ALBANY RALLY
    Just two days from now, New York City teachers probably will have a New York State-imposed evaluation system. But another red-letter day looms: the Buffalo Teachers Federation (BTF) by all indications plans to file a notice of claim June 1 for a lawsuit to fight their evaluation system.
    This is a hugely significant suit, as the BTF is aggressively fighting a flawed evaluation system, over termination use of evaluations. Whereas, the New York City teachers union, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), has promoted evaluation plans which carry terminations. Michael Mulgrew, the latter union's president casts a value-added plus Danielson Framework evaluation structure --plus a termination tie-in-- as a fair reform. (The latter union's givebacks in the last three years amount to a de facto contract.)
    At the heart of the Buffalo Teacher Federation's fight are evaluations and the punitive use of them, toward 3020a terminations of teachers. The union did not trust the application of the evaluations. It secured a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Buffalo School District, pledging that they would not be used in a punitive manner to render negative evaluations. The New York State Education Department, State Education Commissioner John King, and Governor Andrew Cuomo are claiming that the agreement is illegal. The BTF is standing by their guns. State officials claim that the agreement was not submitted for approval as part of the districts' official teacher-evaluation procedure, according to Buffalo News reporter Sandra Tan. Buffalo's evaluation fight has gained national attention at the Education Week blog. In a parallel case of Los Angeles, Diane Ravitch in her blog last October cited the United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA) as a "Hero of Public Education," recognizing that value added modeling of teachers is "inaccurate, invalid and unstable." In similar fashion as the BTF would do this spring, the UTLA refused to sign off on the district's request for Race to the Top funds because doing so would subject members to value-added assessment.
    "WE'RE GOING TO FIGHT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DON'T USE OUR KIDS AS PAWNS IN ORDER FOR US TO GET THIS MONEY" --BTF president Philip Rumore
    Excerpts from Sandra Tan's "BTF going to court to enforce teacher-evaluation agreement" in "The Buffalo News," May 9, 2013:
    The BTF Executive Committee unanimously approved the resolution to take legal action against the district by June 1 and file additional grievances for “non-adherence” to a pact the district made with the union in January. The agreement stated that the district would not use two years of teacher evaluations as grounds for termination.
    “We will leave no stone unturned to make sure these evaluations, which everybody now realizes were flawed, aren’t being held against our teachers,” said BTF President Philip Rumore.
    . . . .
    Legal action by the teachers union could threaten the status of more than $30 million in state aid this year, in addition to more than $10 million in various other government funding this year and tens of millions in future years.
    Rumore said the BTF will work with the New York State United Teachers union to legally challenge any effort by the state to withhold funds from the Buffalo Public Schools.
    “We’re going to fight to make sure that they don’t use our kids as pawns in order for us to get this money,” he said.
    Finally, the BTF may still consider rescinding, by vote of all Buffalo teachers, its approval of the teacher evaluations for the last two school years.
    CARROT AND STICK or SHADES OF DANIELSON THINGS TO COME?
    The use of the evaluations plan has already confirmed Buffalo teachers' suspicions, with virtually blanket ineffective ratings in certain schools.
    In 2011-12, Buffalo was one of a handful of districts across the state receiving federal school-improvement grants.
    To qualify for the money, the district had to have a state-approved teacher-evaluation plan in place at the six schools receiving the grants: Martin Luther King Jr. Multicultural Institute; International School 45; and Bennett, Riverside, South Park and Burgard high schools.
    That means the 400 or so teachers at those six schools were evaluated last year. They got their evaluations about two months ago, and many reportedly were rated “ineffective.”
    . . . .
    Much of the resolution highlights what the union considers to be significant flaws in the teacher-evaluation formula.
    In one Buffalo school, it states, 11 teachers were rated “effective” on all 22 classroom indicators but still wound up with a composite score of “ineffective.”
    In other cases, where two teachers worked with the same set of students, one received 20 evaluation points, while the other teacher received zero.
    BTF RESOLUTION STRONGLY ASSERTS THAT NO NYS DISTRICT WOULD CONCEDE TO UNTESTED EVALUATION SYSTEM WITH PUNISHMENT CONNECTION; BUT MULGREW AND UFT DID
    “Buffalo teachers and teachers across New York State would not have entered into agreements utilizing untested, untried evaluation systems without assurances that due to its untested procedures, it would not be used against them,” the BTF executive committee statement said.
    For months now, off the major media grid, people have written and talked about a seven percent quota of teachers that the UFT has agreed will be lined up for unsatisfactory "U" ratings in end of year evaluations by the New York City Department of Education, setting them in line for 3020a hearings to be stripped of their state teaching license.
    NYC Educator has eloquently written earlier this week on this issue, in "Lucky 7." (NYC Educator has written an equally important, informative piece on how easily VAM evaluations have been used to terminate teachers or deny them tenure.) This is concession, along with the NYC DoE-UFT agreement on another quota, 13 percent, the figure for the cases that the UFT will agree take to an independent arbitrator. These concessions stand in bold contrast to the BTF which secured an MOU precisely against the use of evaluations for terminations. Note further the qualifier in Tan's article --the state does not require termination hearings for two successive ineffective ratings: "The state law allows districts – but does not explicitly require them – to pursue termination for any teacher who gets rated “ineffective” two years in a row. It also states that schools “shall” use the evaluations in employment decisions, including terminations." [Emphasis mine.]
    The UFT already has conceded this point.

    WHILE THE BTF RESISTED, THE UFT WENT ALONG WITH ALL THE KEY POINTS
    As is apparent from reportage going back over a year, the BTF has had friction over this issue for a while. This suit is the culmination. On the other hand, the UFT, under Mulgrew's leadership, has always went along, not grudgingly, but enthusiastically, along with the Danielson Frameworks, along with value-added modeling based on student high-stakes test scores. Never in Mulgrew's statements about Bloomberg or the city did you ever hear Mulgrew make a principled statement against VAM, test-based evaluations. It is a big mistake when people swoon over his sneers against NYC mayor Bloomberg. Judge Mulgrew by his actions, collaborating with the reformers on the key points.

    IMPLICIT SILENCES IN MULGREW'S LETTER ON IMPENDING EVALUATIONS
    Note Mulgrew's letter (reprinted at the end of this post) on the impending Cuomo/King-imposed evaluation scheme. Never in his statement does he say anything re repeat ineffective/unsatisfactory ratings and the termination tie-in. He has caved in on yet another critical point.

    TOO EMBARRASSING TO ACTUALLY FIGHT CUOMO?
    If Mulgrew confronts Cuomo, he risks the contradiction of his UFT --which supports Cuomo and other Democrats through Committee on Political Education (COPE) contributions-- confronting allied Democrats. The Insurgent Teacher blog, in "Buffalo school officials and BTF going back to court," (May 11, 2013) argues that Cuomo is too beholden to wealthy benefactors. The IT blog points out:
    Sadly, the equity firms, banks, and hedge fund investors were the largest donors to politicians including Gov. Andrew Cuomo who sought out Democrats for Education Reform for support and donations. In return these politicians including the NYS Board of Regents coalesced to revamp education law and to install state education commissioners sympathetic to their reform agenda.
    And it was to weaken the unions especially teachers and rid the system of tenure by copying a system of employee evaluations developed in the private sector, where the vast majority are at-will employees.
    TOO EMBARRASSING AND RISKY TO PUT RANK AND FILE UFT MEMBERS NEAR BTF MEMBERS JUNE 8?

    The May NSYUT newspaper, as this blog noted two weeks ago, has struck a far more critical tone re the high-stakes testing mania and how it is affecting our profession; and the same paper drummed up support for attending a June 8 rally at Albany's Empire State Plaza, near the legislature and the NYSED building. (See these links, here and here, for social media connections.) Given the critical (lest we say militant) stances that the BTF is taking --in contrast to the UFT's collaboration (forget about capitulation)-- Mulgrew and the UFT would definitely not want rank and file UFT members anywhere near their Buffalo sisters and brothers. People might start asking questions about evaluation system, their unions' stance, Merryl Tisch's role in evaluations, and too much more. Too uncomfortable as the UFT grooms Tisch-supported Bill Thompson for mayor, and here.
    # # #
    What Mulgrew has to say, as his friend, Andrew Cuomo's evaluation imposition looms [Again, note his skirting of the termination tie-in question, the whole issue at stake in the BTF's lawsuit]:
    Dear colleagues,
    Late on Saturday, June 1, State Education Commissioner John King is expected to release an evaluation plan for K-12 teachers in New York City. It will be done through a binding arbitration process and take effect in September.
    The mayor and the DOE will no doubt try to spin Commissioner King’s decision to their advantage. The UFT staff will be working through Sunday to get accurate information about the new system out to you by Monday morning in a form that is both clear and concise.
    The process to create a new evaluation system has been long and contentious. The final decision came to rest with the commissioner because the city Department of Education proved incapable of negotiating in good faith with us.
    The UFT and the DOE each submitted lengthy proposals to the State Education Department on May 8. Arbitration hearings are taking place in Albany today and tomorrow. Commissioner King will consider the proposals and decide on the final evaluation system on June 1.
    We have the opportunity to use our collective-bargaining rights to modify aspects of the evaluation plan during future contract negotiations. Practically speaking, since we are in fact-finding now, if any changes were negotiated, they would not take effect until the 2014-15 school year.
    Because the commissioner’s plan must be in accordance with the 2010 state law on teacher evaluation that this union supported and helped shape, we expect it to be fair, professional and focused on teacher development to the benefit of our students. The new evaluation system as set out in state law is designed first and foremost to help teachers improve their skills throughout their careers. Teachers who are struggling will get support tailored to their individual needs.
    We have our work cut out for us in September, given this DOE’s terrible track record of translating policy to practice compounded with the fact that they will probably be gone come Jan. 1. We have started working on a professional development plan and we will use our rights to make sure that the new system is implemented fairly. It is a big help that we already have an appeals process for New York City teachers nailed down that will give our members stronger due process rights than they have ever had. I hope this email clarifies where we are and what we can expect. Working together, we will make this transition. You can count on your union to continue to fight to get you the support you deserve. Thank you for all that you do for our city’s schoolchildren.
    Sincerely,
    Michael Mulgrew
    POSTSCRIPT: As Ravitch said in the above-cited post, the UTLA is a hero union for its stance on value-added modeling.
    Because it has remained true to principle, because it insists on evidence-based evaluation, because it insists on honest accounting for the public’s dollars, UTLA is a hero of public education and joins the honor roll.
    The Buffalo Teachers Federation is taking a parallel stance in refusing to allow teacher evaluations be used in teacher terminations. The UFT should act on principle and follow these other big city unions' leads.

    Thursday, May 16, 2013

    The Tale of Two New York Teacher Unions and the Significance of Mulgrew/UFT's Ignoring of NYSUT's 6/8 Rally

    The city union and the state union, the tale of two New York teachers' unions.

    When we look at the New York State United Teachers (NYSUT, the state federation of teachers' unions) and the United Federation of Teachers (the union of New York City teachers) we see very different unions.

    Centerpiece graphic from NYSUT's website.
    The state union is holding a rally on Saturday, June 8 in Albany, at Empire State Plaza, which symbolically abuts both the NYSED building and the New York State Legislature, touching on many specific issues that address patterns of the worsening conditions that teachers are facing. (Special resources page for rally with leaflets and social media links such as Facebook and Twitter.) Furthermore, the timing will be important --we anticipate that one week prior, at or around June 1, Governor Andrew Cuomo and Education Commissioner John King will impose a teacher evaluation system on New York City teachers.
    Of course, we can, and should, point out that the leadership of this same state federation have appeared with state officials, collaborating with some of the policies that teachers are chafing under --for example, see the cooperation with the New York State Race to the Top application. Obviously, if you support the wrong-headed policies, working conditions will deteriorate and learning conditions will deteriorate. (He signed onto not just RTTT but also its controversial components such as evaluations based on students' test scores; and he was aware of other parts that likewise could portent trouble. See this 2011 interview at Education Next.) And we would be greatly remiss if we did not recall that NYSUT President Richard Iannuzzi performed the misdeed of sending a letter warning (or threatening?) teachers that followed their conscience and were active in opposing cooperation with the high-stakes tests. (See my post a month ago, "NYSUT's Iannuzzi as Discipliner, Warns Teachers on Opt-Out Advocacy; Ignores Great Anxiety Tests Can Create.")

    The out-of-New York City teachers union locals are making a lot of the critiques that MORE and its allied bloggers have been making on their sites. (Find your hard copy, inserted in the latest NY Teacher or go to NYSUT's site.) True, the next step, the identification of national and state politicians, Barack Obama, Arne Duncan, Andrew Cuomo, John King, is missing but, the critiques are there, nearly reaching that point. It is instructive to note that the kind of searing critique that arises from statements published on the NYSUT site and in the NYSUT paper are far beyond the limited criticisms that appear on the UFT site and paper.

    Nonetheless, the state level union is waking up. OK, so there's no mea culpa, acknowledging the mistakes of collaboration that engendered this present crisis across the state, we applaud the state union for the way that it is focusing on the worsening conditions. Maybe it was the booing at President Iannuzzi by some of the troops at the state's Representatives Assembly a few weeks back that woke up NYSUT's leadership. And yes, the rhetoric of NYSUT's literature and the statements it is printing in its newspaper could be viewed as a preventive co-optation of the percolating of radical dissidence across New York State.

    We must fault Michael Mulgrew and the United Federation of Teachers for its silence/black-out of the June 8 Albany rally. (Nowhere to be found on the UFT site, not even on its calendar for June.) Moreover, the UFT's June 12 rally has been poorly publicized as of yet. At the June 12 rally we can expect simplistic signs, leaflets that are not text-rich, but whining, short soundbytes; and also, look for noise-makers which will drown out the potential for rank and file chants. Additionally, the contract rally is one which does not at all replicate the issues that the Albany rally raises. Instead, look for criticisms of Bloomberg that do not engage in the holistic analysis that the NYSUT literature has. By having an all unions contracts rally, a specific analysis of the ruinous education policies will get lost.

    NYSUT's rally includes important focus on the terrible patterns. Now, don't get me wrong. The NYSUT literature is incomplete-- it stops short of the properly far reaching connection-making analysis that we would see in Chicago Teachers Union or Movement of Rank and File Educators (MORE Caucus-UFT). But the fact remains that this is more of what we would like than the UFT says.

    NYSUT (SORT OF) CHANNELING MORE AND CORE? Onto the close reading of the NYSUT literature. Exhibit A, NYSUT's general community oriented flyer. It criticizes the tests for crowding out quality instruction. Parts of it parallel the kinds of critiques that the UFT's dissident MORE caucus has been making. Granted, it does echo American Federation of Teachers (AFT) President Randi Weingarten's call for a moratorium on the high-stakes use of the high-stakes tests until the problems can be worked out. Preferable would be an out-right rejection. Yet, it is worth noting that Weingarten's limited critique is still far beyond anything Mulgrew has called for. Note that he has made no statement echoing her moratorium call. Again, the UFT's ignoring of the NYSUT rally speaks volumes. For Mulgrew to give attention to the NYSUT rally and its literature would inherently concede the legitimacy of the MORE caucus' critiques, as well as the points that MORE activists such as Julie Cavanagh and Brian Jones have been making since before the formation of MORE.
    From the flyer:
    End the over-reliance on expensive corporate-developed tests!
    * Rethink the use of high stakes assessments and the negative impact on students and entire school community. Call for a moratorium on high stakes consequences for testing until the state can get it right!
    * These tests put too much stress on students and reduce real learning time.
    * Sensible and meaningful assessments are needed that align with instruction and accurately measure student progress.
    Recall how MORE has been making parallel calls for a more holistic, comprehensive curriculum, as the Chicago Teachers Union (under the leadership of the CORE caucus) has made, in contrast to the UFT's comparative reticence on the excessive test prep focus on English Language Arts (ELA) and math to the exclusion of other subjects? Well, the next topical demand on the flyer has parts from MORE's mission statement or election platform:
    Demand fair and equitable funding of our schools!
    * Restore the programs that are being eliminated across the state and which research shows improve academic performance, especially in communities in need, including pre-kindergarten programs, pre- and after-school programs, art, music, foreign languages, advanced placement, etc.
    Remember mayoral control? Mulgrew and the Unity-controlled UFT brazenly called for the extension of it under slight modifications. With the prospect of Christine Quinn as mayor can we really afford to gamble on more mayoral control?
    What is the NYSUT position? Note how the flyer pitches to communities' desires for community input (dare I say community control?) and democratic yearnings.
    Progressive unionists must say clearly that the institution of mayoral control as implemented in urban cities with majority minority populations is the exercise of a separate but equal standard.
    Progressives that assert to support democracy and oppose racism should support the complete elimination of mayoral control and the complete restoration of elected school-boards. There is the grandest of double standards whereby public discourse points to instances of corruption in the old Board of Education, yet turns a blind eye to how corruption can and does happen in white, more affluent communities. Witness the suspected municipal corruption that engendered a Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) lockdown Wednesday of Ramapo, Rockland County, New York Town Hall offices. It was no man gone wild, no threat of terrorism; no, it was the securing of records that could implicate people in acts of political corruption, with 40 (!) FBI agents wheeling out documents. See the media buzz the FBI raid has raised.
    Restore local control of our public schools! Fix the tax cap!
    * We need to restore our democratic principle of majority rule and local control in educational decision-making.
    * Our parents, teachers and local communities know better than Albany does
    Goodness gracious, democratic principle of majority rule and local control, --shudders!-- what wild radical ideas! What would Mulgrew, Mendel or Barr say???
    Finally, we have demands that reach beyond the school teachers, to immigrant communities and to health care workers. Wow! More radical social justice talk! What would Mulgrew, Mendel or Barr say???
    Invest in public higher education!
    * Make higher education available and affordable for all students!
    * Pass the DREAM Act; renew the opportunity for all students to pursue higher education!
    * Save SUNY Downstate! New York State public teaching hospitals provide quality community care and avenues for low-income students to become doctors and other health care professionals.
    Exhibit B: NYSUT's more simply worded flyer. It has a reduced version of the above discussed flyer. With this added part: slogan against corporate control of education. OK, so it doesn't mention Pearson, but this isn't Uncle Mike's UFT.
    * Against corporate control of public education!
    Next, we have the latest editions of NYSUT's newspaper, NYSUT United and the UFT's New York Teacher to compare and contrast.
    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
    RallyJune 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 leafletssilence 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 is valid to have a contract rally, but the timing is conveniently distracting from the June 8 rally. Anyway, as The Chief reported in its latest issue this week, contract arbitration is expected to drag into the summer. And Mulgrew and company are essentially on record as saying that they will not seek a new contract until Bloomberg is out of office.

    NYSUT United's May issue includes an article giving the overall rationale for the rally; an article with various (non-NYC) NYSUT local leaders speaking critically of the tests and for the students, "At testing forums, educators stand up for their students," in which teachers speak up to Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch and referencing the Common Cause in a critical manner. Also, note the tone of this language:
    "We torture our students with assessments that do not take into account learning styles," said Malone FT's Angela Spahr. "It's a free, appropriate public education we're supposed to be providing. This isn't appropriate."
    By contrast, the UFT paper's editors and or writers made sure to couch any criticisms of the Common Core with praising comments. NYSUT printed a pitch by the Averill Park Teachers' Association president for the rally that skewered Pearson, inBloom, high-stakes tests, points we rarely see made in the UFT paper:
    TOP TEN reasons to March on Albany in the Rally for Public Education:
    10. You have realized public education is being hi-jacked by for profit organizations.
    9. You are tired of reading about how ineffective you are at your own profession by people who know nothing about education.
    8. You believe high stakes testing is out of control in NY.
    7. You believe you have not had enough time to learn the Common Core yourself, let alone have your students tested on it!
    6. You believe your students’ personal information, including their state assessment results and their IEPs and other personal data should be kept confidential.
    5. You believe your effectiveness rating should be kept confidential, and don’t want a link on the district web page to this information or directions given to get this information.
    4. You believe that NYS should report to the public the amount of tax payer money spent on developing, administering, grading and reviewing state assessments.
    3. The word PEARSON makes your skin crawl.
    2. You work in Averill Park (Insert your own school district.) and have lost about a quarter of your faculty due to unfair state budget cuts!
    AND THE NUMBER ONE REASON….
    1. You are a caring professional who wants the BEST public education for your own students, children, and grandchildren and you know this isn't it!
    NYSUT has also prominently reprinted an impassioned poem by a teacher worn-out by the test-prep focused routine that teaching has become. See Samantha Kucerak's poem, "I am a teacher, and I am tired," reprinted from the NYSUT website, on the side-bar at the right. While she writes from Homer, New York, she speaks for what thousands of New York City teachers are feeling.
    In closing, the June 8 rally is an opportunity for progressive New York City teacher activists to make common cause with and to meet teachers from AFT locals across the state that are kindred spirits. Would Michael Mulgrew and his allied masters of ossified, bureaucratic unionism was to expose UFT rank and filers to the sort of leaflets, slogans and conversations that are closer to those expressed by MORE activists or their favorite national columnists, Diane Ravitch, Valerie Strauss or Susan Ohanian? (Not to mention the potential of meeting members of parent-teacher alliances from Long Island or Western New York that have been active in building test opt-out movements.) Of course not.
    Let's defy Mulgrew's cynical move to ignore the June 8 Albany rally of our upstate and Long Island brothers and sisters.
    Let's rally at Albany, the source of so much our working condition woes, from the state's Race to the Top application to the evaluation system that Cuomo will impose on New York City teachers just a week before.