The art of the Civil Rights era, by artists, in the 1960s and early 1970s, in and out of the movement, captured the imagination, urgency, justice and passion of the need for racial equality and justice. Some excellent pieces are displayed in the exhibit, "Exhibitions: Witness: Art and Civil Rights in the Sixties," at the Brooklyn Museum is being held over until July 13, 2014.
We cannot help but note and emphasize: while of course, huge gains were made, and rights were secured that are taken for granted today, on some issues the mission of integration and justice of equality of resources remains as vital today. As the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) noted this spring, New York State schools are the most segregated in the nation. And New York City schools are the third most segregated in the nation, after those of Chicago and Dallas.
A placard next to an art piece speaks of segregationist policies in Brooklyn in the early 1960s. What a shame that this is continuing today under so-called progressive New York City mayor Bill de Blasio, so-called progressive governor Andrew Cuomo and the so-called progressive president Barack Obama. New York City's caste system of schools have up-to-date resources in the integrated schools that have more White and Asian students. Yet, in the city schools that are 90 percent plus Black or Latino students, we see the concentration of schools that lack librarians.
Where are the Brown vs. Board of Education suits today? Oh yes, the New York City Parents Union is attacking teachers as the problem, ignoring race and class bias in the distribution of resources. As Green party candidate for New York lieutenant governor Brian Jones was quoted in the July 4, 2014 issue of "The Chief,"
"The attack on Teacher tenure is about scapegoating Teachers for the conditions of our schools," said Mr. Jones. "Why aren't they filing suit against Cuomo for shortchanging local schools for funding by $9 billion?"
Training a glance on schools, politics, transit, and engaging in the war of position to fight back against the war on educators and quality education
Sunday, July 6, 2014
Vergara Monologues - Piercing the Fiction to Reach the Inconvenient Truths in the Tenure-Crushing Decision by Cal. Suprerior Decision
This week California Superior Court Rolf Treu created a national earthquake with his decision that tenure was unconstitutional. Teacher unions are bracing for more toxic astroturf mobilizing by the pro-privatization, anti-tenure millionaires in other states. However, as the New York Times noted on the occasion of Mona Davids' (of the New York City Parents Union) lawsuit against teacher tenure in New York State, the road forward for a legal challenge to teacher tenure faces a shakier road in New York.
Vergara Monologues - Discussion in a One-Dimensional Echo Chamber
The decision was treated matter of factly by the media. Shocking as it is, yet it is merely part of just another utterance in a media vortex echo chamber of corporate education reformer agendas, as alternative perspectives are rare. It is very telling that as the media from the top media outlets down to NPR affiliates as WNYC sustain the privatizer talking points, yet for power houses our side is left to one nationally recognized powerhouse (Diane Ravitch) and just one national newspaper of prestige with a sympathetic columnist (Valerie Strauss and her Answer Sheet column at the Washington Post).
So, the very, very pivotal point was made at the Ravitch's blog, that the assumptions in the case were quite flawed. Some of the Vergara case plaintiffs actually attended schools that did not have teacher tenure. Additionally, at this blog, I have frequently made the comment that the media and policy makers must recognize that there are factors that impact upon student performance. Family income, community climate (tranquility or danger and anxiety) are major determinants that impact upon performance. Thus it is a cavalier expectation to demand that teachers produce students as top-performing as those in affluent neighborhoods.
Note how the both the details of the story and reality of Oakland communities comes through in this expose of a blog post, June 11, at Ravitch's blog.
Curious selection of California as the poster state
Computer entrepreneur David Welch bankrolled the case. Much attention went to the fact that California teachers get tenure after two years of satisfactory service. This distorts the national picture. For, as we see in the map below, this is an exceptionally short tenure-granting period. Three years of experience is the norm.
The negative effects of staffing turmoil
The last decade has seen much turmoil at the staffing level of schools. An institutionally hostile working climate has led to increasing turnover. We note this with the idea in mind that improved teacher quality comes with years on the job. Yet, with the median number of years of experience among teachers in the field declining students in the current era are getting more teachers that are just learning the craft and fewer that have become polished through experience.
The education reform hallmark of churning teachers in and out of the system, thus negating the possibility that school systems will ever pay promised pensions to many educators, is strongest in lower income communities. Here, note the continuing theme of aggressively driving staff turnover in this piece noted in the Journal of Black Higher Education. It cites a study by Susan Headden for the Carnegie Foundation, "Beginners in the Classroom: What the Changing Demographics of Teaching Mean for Schools, Students, and Society."
High turnover among new teachers in public school classrooms undermines school stability, serves as an impediment to educational reform, and hurts student achievement, a study by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching finds.
Vergara Monologues - Discussion in a One-Dimensional Echo Chamber
The decision was treated matter of factly by the media. Shocking as it is, yet it is merely part of just another utterance in a media vortex echo chamber of corporate education reformer agendas, as alternative perspectives are rare. It is very telling that as the media from the top media outlets down to NPR affiliates as WNYC sustain the privatizer talking points, yet for power houses our side is left to one nationally recognized powerhouse (Diane Ravitch) and just one national newspaper of prestige with a sympathetic columnist (Valerie Strauss and her Answer Sheet column at the Washington Post).
So, the very, very pivotal point was made at the Ravitch's blog, that the assumptions in the case were quite flawed. Some of the Vergara case plaintiffs actually attended schools that did not have teacher tenure. Additionally, at this blog, I have frequently made the comment that the media and policy makers must recognize that there are factors that impact upon student performance. Family income, community climate (tranquility or danger and anxiety) are major determinants that impact upon performance. Thus it is a cavalier expectation to demand that teachers produce students as top-performing as those in affluent neighborhoods.
Note how the both the details of the story and reality of Oakland communities comes through in this expose of a blog post, June 11, at Ravitch's blog.
The Vergara Trial Teachers Were Not “Grossly Ineffective”
I was curious to learn whether the plaintiffs in the Vergara trial actually had “grossly ineffective teachers.” The answer is “no, they did not.”
Not only did none of them have a “grossly ineffective” teacher, but some of the plaintiffs attended schools where there are no tenured teachers. Two of the plaintiffs attend charter schools, where there is no tenure or seniority, and as you will read below, “Beatriz and Elizabeth Vergara both attend a “Pilot School” in LAUSD that is free to let teachers go at the end of the school year for any reason, including ineffectiveness.
It turns out that the lawyers for the defense checked the records of the plaintiffs’ teachers, and this is what they found (filed as a post-trial brief in the case): (See pp. 5-6).
“Plaintiffs have not established that the statutes have ever caused them any harm or are likely to do so in the future. None of the nine named Plaintiffs established that he or she was assigned to an allegedly grossly ineffective teacher, or that he or she faces any immediate risk of future harm, as a result of the challenged statutes. The record contains no evidence that Plaintiffs Elliott, Liss, Campbell or Martinez were ever assigned a grossly ineffective teacher at all. Of the remaining five Plaintiffs, most of the teachers whom they identified as “bad” or “grossly ineffective” were excellent teachers. Because none of the five Plaintiffs are reliable evaluators of teacher performance, their testimony about the remaining purportedly ineffective teachers should not be credited. Nor could Plaintiffs link their assignment to purportedly “bad” or “grossly ineffective” teachers to the challenged statutes. Not a single witness claimed that any of Plaintiffs’ teachers were granted permanent status because of the two-year probationary period, would have been dismissed in the absence of the dismissal statutes, or would have been laid off had reverse seniority not been a factor in layoffs. Indeed, Plaintiffs did not call any administrator of any of Plaintiffs’ schools to corroborate their testimony or in any way connect the teachers they identified to the statutes they challenge. Furthermore, any threat of future harm to Plaintiffs caused by the challenged statutes is purely speculative. Plaintiffs Elliott and DeBose are high school seniors who will almost certainly graduate in spring 2014. Plaintiffs Monterroza and Martinez both attend charter schools that are not subject to the challenged statutes at all. Beatriz and Elizabeth Vergara both attend a “Pilot School” in LAUSD that is free to let teachers go at the end of the school year for any reason, including ineffectiveness. As for the remaining three Plaintiffs, there is no concrete, specific evidence supporting any claim that they will be assigned to grossly ineffective teachers due to the challenged statutes; instead, their claims are based on pure speculation.”
One of the plaintiffs (Monterroza) said that her teacher, Christine McLaughlin was a very bad teacher, but McLaughlin was Pasadena teacher of the year and has received many awards for excellent teaching (google her).
Surely, there must be “grossly ineffective” teachers in the state of California, but no evidence was presented that the plaintiffs in the case had teachers who were “grossly ineffective.”
Surely, there must be “grossly ineffective” teachers in the state of California, but no evidence was presented that the plaintiffs in the case had teachers who were “grossly ineffective.”
What about turnover of teachers in high-poverty schools in California:
Betty Olson-Jones, former president of the Oakland Education Association, testified: “Oakland has an extremely difficult time retaining teachers. The statistic that I was always struck with was of the beginning teachers in 2003, there were about 300 who began in Oakland, and by 2008 about 76 percent of those left. Generally, the turnover rate is about 50 percent, even higher among some — in some schools. I feel that part of the reason is that the conditions are very difficult, very high-poverty rate in Oakland, lack of support services. Oakland has very few counselors, nurses, one librarian left, high class size, high standard of living in the bay area. Children come with a lot of needs that aren’t fulfilled, and teachers are expected to make up that difference and are agonized often by their inability to do so because they lack the support and the conditions to do so.”
What about working conditions? Anthony Mize taught at the Vergara sisters’ school. He testified: “There was a back-to-school night where there was drive-by shooting 30 to 50 yards from behind my classroom. I remember talking with a mother at the time. And I was just about to say to the mom, ‘and your son has trouble paying attention,’ and seven to nine shots rang out.”
None of this testimony impressed the judge.
For a fuller statement by the defense in the case read this submitted document. http://www.vergaratrial.com/storage/documents/2014.04.10.Intervenors_Post-Trial_Brief.pdfCurious selection of California as the poster state
Computer entrepreneur David Welch bankrolled the case. Much attention went to the fact that California teachers get tenure after two years of satisfactory service. This distorts the national picture. For, as we see in the map below, this is an exceptionally short tenure-granting period. Three years of experience is the norm.
The negative effects of staffing turmoil
The last decade has seen much turmoil at the staffing level of schools. An institutionally hostile working climate has led to increasing turnover. We note this with the idea in mind that improved teacher quality comes with years on the job. Yet, with the median number of years of experience among teachers in the field declining students in the current era are getting more teachers that are just learning the craft and fewer that have become polished through experience.
The education reform hallmark of churning teachers in and out of the system, thus negating the possibility that school systems will ever pay promised pensions to many educators, is strongest in lower income communities. Here, note the continuing theme of aggressively driving staff turnover in this piece noted in the Journal of Black Higher Education. It cites a study by Susan Headden for the Carnegie Foundation, "Beginners in the Classroom: What the Changing Demographics of Teaching Mean for Schools, Students, and Society."
High turnover among new teachers in public school classrooms undermines school stability, serves as an impediment to educational reform, and hurts student achievement, a study by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching finds.
The report, Beginners in the Classroom: What the Changing Demographics of Teaching Mean for Schools, Students, and Society, found that new teachers quit in large numbers largely due to the fact that they receive inadequate professional development opportunities, insufficient emotional backing, and inadequate feedback with respect to their performance.
Indeed, the report found that between 1988 and 2008, rates of teacher attrition rose some 41 percent, and in many urban school districts more than half the new teachers hired leave within five years.
The report also found that teachers at public charter schools are 40 percent more likely than teachers in district-run schools to transfer to another school and 52 percent more likely to leave the teaching profession altogether.
As a result, the profession as a whole is younger and less experienced than it was a generation ago, and that, according to the report, is putting a strain on district budgets, serving to undermine school cultures, and lowering student achievement.
Teacher attrition not only costs school districts more than $7 billion a year in recruitment
and induction expenses, the report notes, it also impedes the implementation of educational reforms, disrupts relationships among teachers and between teachers and students, and negatively affects students, especially in majority Black & Latino and low-achieving schools.
Thursday, July 3, 2014
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.
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.
Thursday, June 19, 2014
WNYC: No Public Record of Cuomo and Charters --Even Though He Had Central Appearance at Rally
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo had a central appearance at a rally for charter schools at Albany this spring. Yet after a WNYC Freedom of Information request there was very little information in the public record about activity leading to the appearance.
Interesting, because the New York Times reported April 3 about the governor and the rally, "Cuomo Played Pivotal Role in Charter School Push." This governor has difficulty with transparency.
By Robert Lewis : Reporter, WNYC News
Gov. Andrew Cuomo's office has no public records showing how he came to attend and speak at a massive charter school rally in early March.
Click here for the rest of the WNYC news article, and here for the on-demand podcast.
The Perdido Street School blog also reported this week, "Governor Cuomo Apologized To Hedge Fund Managers Via Video About Skipping Lake Placid Education Reform Conference." As that blog asked, "Who's Your Daddy?"
Post-script: Daily Kos announced the launching of a special blog by New York Communities for Change:
Interesting, because the New York Times reported April 3 about the governor and the rally, "Cuomo Played Pivotal Role in Charter School Push." This governor has difficulty with transparency.
No Public Record of Cuomo and Charters
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
WNYC
Gov. Andrew Cuomo's office has no public records showing how he came to attend and speak at a massive charter school rally in early March.
WNYC asked the governor's office for records of all communication between the executive chamber and Families for Excellent Schools, the group that organized the rally, and with Success Academy Charter Schools, the charter company at the center of the movement's clash with Mayor Bill de Blasio.
More than three months later, the Cuomo administration says it has no public record of any communication between the governor's office and rally organizers before, during or after the event.
There is no record of an invitation to the event, no record of calls or emails to discuss logistics, no calendar entries showing meetings and only one short email exchange with Success Academy and mid-level administration staffers to circulate court papers not directly related to the rally.
In fact, the administration, which has received large campaign donations from the charter industry, says it has no public records of any communication with the rally organizers and virtually none with Success Academy since Cuomo took office in 2011.
. . .
Eva Moskowitz correspondence . . .
The Cuomo administration has been widely criticized for its lack of transparency.
. . .
Eva Moskowitz correspondence . . .
The Cuomo administration has been widely criticized for its lack of transparency.
Click here for the rest of the WNYC news article, and here for the on-demand podcast.
The Perdido Street School blog also reported this week, "Governor Cuomo Apologized To Hedge Fund Managers Via Video About Skipping Lake Placid Education Reform Conference." As that blog asked, "Who's Your Daddy?"
Post-script: Daily Kos announced the launching of a special blog by New York Communities for Change:
CuomoWatch: Cash and Carry Cuomo
Today we're launching CuomoWatch - NYCC's blog covering Andrew Cuomo's corporate-backed agenda which is wreaking havoc on public education, low wage workers, immigrants, and homeowners and tenants through the state. Unfortunately, we'll be posting frequently - The Governor is really hard at work!Sunday, June 15, 2014
Cuomo Has Raised Millions Through Loophole He Pledged to Close
ProPublica has an important report that echoes many of the concerns on the Perdido Street School blog. Mainly, the report deals with the self-serving exploitation of fund-raising loopholes that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo engages in.
by Theodoric Meyer
ProPublica, June 13, 2014
Cuomo Has Raised Millions Through Loophole He Pledged to Close
The governor has called for closing a gap in the state’s campaign finance laws,
but he’s taken far more through the loophole than his predecessors, much of it
from real estate developers.
but he’s taken far more through the loophole than his predecessors, much of it
from real estate developers.
ProPublica, June 13, 2014
Follow this link for the rest of Theodoric Mayer's story at ProPublica.When he ran for office four years ago, New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo pledged to close a loophole in the state's campaign finance regulations allowing corporations and individuals to pour unlimited amounts of money into politics.
The consensus candidate of 2010 Instead, he's become the loophole's biggest beneficiary.New York State forbids corporations from giving more than $5,000 a year to candidates and political committees. But limited liability companies—businesses that share attributes of corporations and partnerships—are allowed to give up to $60,800 to a statewide candidate per election cycle and up to $150,000 a year to candidates and committees overall. What's more, corporations and individuals can set up an unlimited number of LLCs through which to donate, making the caps effectively meaningless.Cuomo took contributions from LLCs while running for governor in 2010, but said at the time that he was only accepting them so that he could get elected and change the law. He has twice proposed legislation that would eliminate the LLC exception, most recently in his budget proposal in January, but it hasn't been enacted. He told reporters Wednesdaythat there was little chance any campaign finance reforms would pass before the legislative session ends next week.Cuomo has accepted more than $6.2 million from LLCs in the three and a half years since he took office, according to a ProPublica analysis of state campaign finance filings. That's more than double the amount his two predecessors, Eliot Spitzer and David Paterson, took in during their combined four years in office. The contributions make up a sizeable chunk of the $33 million Cuomo has reported raising for his re-election campaign. (The data reflects contributions reported through mid-January, when candidates last filed disclosure reports.)In a statement, Cuomo spokesman Matthew Wing offered this to explain the apparent contradiction: "The Cuomo campaign is following existing campaign finance laws, while the Governor is leading the charge to reform them, including closing the loophole for LLCs."That's of little consolation to campaign finance watchdogs concerned that those who have—or are seeking to have—business with New York are continuing to use this wrinkle in the state's contribution rules to exert their influence. Much of the money coming to Cuomo through LLCs appears to be from real estate developers, with cable companies and liquor distributors among those also providing healthy cash infusions."This is a gaping hole," said Dick Dadey, the executive director of Citizens Union, a New York good-government group. Getting rid of it is "an easy fix that would turn the spigot down a bit of the flow of money from big contributors."
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
California Court Vergara v. California teacher tenure decision's significance – missing history from a tragic historic moment
Cal Superior Court Judge Rolf Treu's decision in the Silicon Valley mogul David Welch engineered case, Vergara v. California (ruling here) is one more ominious siege against teachers in the reformers' national war on teachers. This bodes terribly for teachers. Privitizing operatives such as Michelle Rhee are sure to exploit this case for future campaigns.
Teachers are already under siege, with high stakes test score-based evaluations, with the Danielson Framework and other evaluation regimens, demeaning a once noble profession, with micro-managing that brings a whole new meaning to Frederick Winslow Taylor's legacy of scientific management.
This could only happen in a climate in which the leading teachers union federations, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association have not spoken up against the central philosophy and assumptions of the neo-liberal or neo-conservative privatizers. Regarding the neo-liberals, note that Arne Duncan, Democratic U.S. President Barack Obama's Secretary of Education endorsed the judge's decision, enthusiastically so, as reported by the New York Times. California Democratic Congressman George Miller cheered the decision, as reported by the Washington Post. Instead, the top business union oriented teacher union leaders have only piece-meal spoken up, only too late, as in the present case.
Union leaders must cite the fundamental relationship between class and academic performance. In the face of an ongoing attack on teachers which exclusively cites the classroom teacher as the determinant of classroom performance, union leaders have been silent. They have failed to cite the literature that demonstrates a direct correlation of levels of parental income and student performance, as noted here. Growing numbers of commentators and researchers are recognizing the factor of family income as noted here.
The top union leaders have been aloof from the California case, treating it as a minor mosquito bite. They have failed to make the case to the public for why tenure is important, they have failed to, thoroughly in a pronounced public campaign, make the case that tenure is simply a means to ensure that there is due process in cases of teacher dismissal.
Silence on the history of tenure
Furthermore, the top union leaders have failed to cite the historical presidence for tenure. Indeed, the concept reaches as far back as 1158. And its modern form has its roots in early 1800s Harvard College.
No, the top teachers union leaders have not spoken up, because they have been insulated from the recent experience of working in the classroom, as the rank and file. They do not feel the insecurity and deskilling and deprofessionalization that teachers in contemporary America feel. They, with their top two percent salaries in the mid 200,000s plus level, salaries exceeding those earned by U.S. cabinet secretaries, do not live the 98 percent experience.
Teachers are already under siege, with high stakes test score-based evaluations, with the Danielson Framework and other evaluation regimens, demeaning a once noble profession, with micro-managing that brings a whole new meaning to Frederick Winslow Taylor's legacy of scientific management.
This could only happen in a climate in which the leading teachers union federations, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association have not spoken up against the central philosophy and assumptions of the neo-liberal or neo-conservative privatizers. Regarding the neo-liberals, note that Arne Duncan, Democratic U.S. President Barack Obama's Secretary of Education endorsed the judge's decision, enthusiastically so, as reported by the New York Times. California Democratic Congressman George Miller cheered the decision, as reported by the Washington Post. Instead, the top business union oriented teacher union leaders have only piece-meal spoken up, only too late, as in the present case.
Union leaders must cite the fundamental relationship between class and academic performance. In the face of an ongoing attack on teachers which exclusively cites the classroom teacher as the determinant of classroom performance, union leaders have been silent. They have failed to cite the literature that demonstrates a direct correlation of levels of parental income and student performance, as noted here. Growing numbers of commentators and researchers are recognizing the factor of family income as noted here.
The top union leaders have been aloof from the California case, treating it as a minor mosquito bite. They have failed to make the case to the public for why tenure is important, they have failed to, thoroughly in a pronounced public campaign, make the case that tenure is simply a means to ensure that there is due process in cases of teacher dismissal.
Silence on the history of tenure
Furthermore, the top union leaders have failed to cite the historical presidence for tenure. Indeed, the concept reaches as far back as 1158. And its modern form has its roots in early 1800s Harvard College.
No, the top teachers union leaders have not spoken up, because they have been insulated from the recent experience of working in the classroom, as the rank and file. They do not feel the insecurity and deskilling and deprofessionalization that teachers in contemporary America feel. They, with their top two percent salaries in the mid 200,000s plus level, salaries exceeding those earned by U.S. cabinet secretaries, do not live the 98 percent experience.
Monday, May 26, 2014
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)