"Retiree-Driven Unionism" and Unity's House of Cards

It wasn't too long ago I received a U.F.T. e-mail from Janella Hinds and Sterling Roberson touting "Educator-driven unionism!"  

I think they really meant "Retiree-driven unionism!"  At present, retirees cannot vote upon contracts, but they can vote in leadership elections.  How long will it be before Unity further increases the voting power of retirees?  Perhaps, someday, in this surrealistic life we are leading, Unity may give its retirees the right to vote upon contracts.  Would you put it beyond them?

The U.F.T. is one of the few labor unions in the United States which allows retired members to vote in its elections.  Since 1989, the U.F.T. capped the number of retiree votes which could count towards elections at 18,000.  In 2012, clearly in anticipation of the upcoming election, the number was raised to 21,813 votes.  It is no surprise that retirees vote overwhelmingly for Unity.  The Unity they remember was active and strong.  It faced its own severe challenges, but nothing in the way of the current assault against public education today. 

Unity's strategy of increasing the weight of retiree votes helped it widen its 2013 margin of victory.  Thirty-eight percent of retirees voted.  Only 17% of active members voted.  It is not a confirmation of the status quo.  No one I know is happy with the current educational ethos, imposed top-down.  Disenchantment and a desperate sense of hopelessness prevail.  

Mulgrew won an overwhelming 86.3% of the vote, down somewhat from his 91% victory in 2010.  The U.F.T. website will thrill you with these facts, but it will not mention that more than half the votes came from retirees.  In my mind, our Union is suffering some potentially fatal illness.  Yet, as long as Unity wins and widens the victory with the help of its retirees, Unity remains unfazed by it all.  Living on Sunset Boulevard, Unity touts "Educator-driven unionism!"  

I find it intensely disturbing...and disheartening.  Given our current war against, let us say "ed. deformers," instead of "reformers," to avoid the politically sensitive error in semantics made by Mulgrew, Unity should be busy mobilizing its rank and file.  I would not attack Unity on every count.  I do admire much that they have done for us over the years.   I do admire the retirees who built our Union into a powerhouse.  

Despite all of this, I disagree wholeheartedly with Unity's failure to mobilize its active base.  We will not win a war in which the media is severely slanted unless we can empower a majority of our members, with a voice in every classroom, with a voice in every school, with a voice in every neighborhood, to work for change. 

I disagree wholeheartedly with Unity's unwillingness to debate.  Unity refused to debate MORE's Julie Cavanagh  prior to the 2013 election and Unity is now refusing to debate the new contract.  It appears Mulgrew silenced debate at the May 2014 D.A. meeting prior to the contract vote.  Mulgrew also pushed the contract past our 300-member contract committee before it even had a chance to read the Memorandum of Agreement.  It might be that Mulgrew feels the contract is God's gift to the working teacher, but if this is the case why does one need to slam one's foot on the pedal, past all checks and balances, as if evading the cops?

I disagree wholeheartedly with Unity's failure to give non-Unity members any meaningful voice.  Chapter leaders who are repeatedly re-elected by large constituencies in their schools are largely disenfranchised.  In the 2013 election, MORE won 41% of the high-school vote.  Yet, it has no representation in NYSUT or AFT conventions.  

I disagree wholeheartedly with Unity's loyalty oath foisted upon its "faithful" in exchange for lucrative jobs in union offices, promises of free trips to conferences and other benefits.  I disagree with Unity's attempt to shut down, silence and, perhaps, intimidate its own members who realize all too well that the purse strings may be cut.  

Unity has the liberty of slamming its foot to the pedal because it is guaranteed a majority vote of all loyalty-oath abiding Unity members.  Unity's chapter leaders throughout the City are told to go out and bring in the "Yes" vote.  Unity sends its representatives across the City to sell the contract.  No one should be under the false impression that Unity reps. come with an open mind, free of bias.  They will be very helpful in answering your questions, but they come to sell you Unity's vision, free of debate.  Unity is an elite pack, or, depending upon how you look at it, a bully on the playground, relying on its superior force rather than reason to rule.  

I say without any reservations that there is an illness in Unity.  Presently, its members sense only the "stillness in the wind" and they think it will always be so.  They think they can stand without the support of the rank and file.  The rank and file of today will become the retirees of tomorrow and many are intensely unhappy.  I say Unity is living in a house of cards. They may laugh.  And, they may forget that the Berlin Wall has been smashed and the Soviet Union has crumbled.  They may refuse to look to Chicago.  There are lessons to be learned from history.  I would advise them to consider the Windy City before their house of cards tumbles before their disbelieving eyes.   

Would You Buy a Yugo from this Man?

My jaw drops at some of the nonsense I'm hearing in defense of the new contract. The first line of defense, of course, is Mulgrew's threat to the DA. If you vote no, you have to wait for 150 unions. Let's be clear. First, there is history here. In 1995, Sandra Feldman told us anyone who thought we'd do better must be "smoking something." Nonetheless, we voted it down. When I hit maximum in my 22nd rather than 25th year, I was very glad we did.

Can I wait for that whopping 2% compensation increase waiting for me, or that thousand-buck pre-tax bribe? Well, yes I can. And even if I wanted it really badly, it would be unacceptable if it cost one of my ATR brothers or sisters a job. And second-tier due process for ATRs, for those of you who don't know what a giveback is, is a giveback.

Isn't due process for one teacher due process for all? Isn't that fundamental to us as unionists? How can Mulgrew call the process fast and fair when he himself now states that arbitrators will set policy? We don't even know what the policy is and we're praising it.

You may have also seen a recent post here trying to organize a free and fair forum so both sides could be heard. A UFT rep got back to me and objected to Geoff Decker of Chalkbeat NY as a moderator. I understand that they may have been upset with Chalkbeat reporting Mulgrew's DA comments. I proposed the names of several other journalists, but the UFT rep expressed concern about UFT inside baseball being reported by the press. This was troubling, as it then became very difficult to figure who could moderate.

What was more troubling, on reflection, was the fact that if UFT was unwilling to allow a journalist to view a two-sided forum, they'd likely be even more unwilling to allow it to be recorded. This, to me, made the entire idea less than worthwhile. While I'd very much like for my members to see both sides of the argument, I'd like even more for UFT members citywide to see it.

The other day I peeked at the comments on Norm Scott's post, largely a mirror of mine. There's a meme being tossed around by Unity faithful, that members should simply read the MOA and make up their own mind. This, of course, comes from the same people who voted it up sight unseen not once, but twice.

I was very clear that both sides would get equal airing, unlike the DA, where Mulgrew spoke for an hour and unceremoniously cut off James Eterno in fewer than 30 seconds. That, to some Unity supporters, represents democracy. But the young UFT delegate to my right watched this and asked me why we even had a union. A former elementary teacher, she said even elementary students could clearly see how unfair this is. Yet a Unity supporter mustered the audacity to tell me the other day that both sides were heard.

The comments on Norm's site indicate that a fair discussion would be a "personal attack" on Janella Hinds, the UFT VP. First of all, no one suggested anything whatsoever personal about Janella, and no one suggested it should be she, or indeed anyone in particular representing the pro view. Another suggests the notion of a forum is to sway and misinform. Yet another suggests the UFT reps are an adequate source of info.

This is simply not personal. I'm friends with a lot of people with whom I disagree politically. I'm not in the habit of calling them liars for disagreeing with me, and I'm routinely shocked at the intolerance of the Unity cult at the DA.

Regardless, one side is simply not enough. UFT members deserve to hear both sides, and the overwhelming majority simply are not. UFT leadership requires a loyalty oath from those who join the Unity Caucus, which you can see right here. They are sworn to publicly support whatever leadership tells them to. They are, therefore, not a reliable source of information. They may be right, and they may be wrong, but they are sworn to say what they're told for better or worse.

If you were looking for the most reliable car to drive, would you use the Yugo dealer as your sole source of information? I wouldn't.

We're teachers. We're role models for the kids we serve.

We don't deserve their respect if we all drive Yugos just because Mike Mulgrew tells us to.

What About the Kids?

With all this talk about how awful this contract is for us, it seems a good time to take a look at how it will benefit the students we serve. After all, the Daily News is interviewing legal expert Campbell Brown again. Of course, she and whoever pays for her to do whatever it is she does are only interested in firing as many teachers as possible. Will this contract do that?

Well, the city seems to be sending out signals it will divest itself of ATR teachers. Union says it won't happen, and that the one-day 3020a process will be "fast and fair." Only time will tell who's right, what with it never having been tested. It will be a tough day for those who get fined thousands of dollars, as are most, and an even tougher day for those who are fired. Since reformy folks are happy to fire teachers indiscriminately so as to cripple the last bastion of vibrant unionism in these United States, their ideas don't help anyone except those who line their pockets as a result.

So what about our students? Will the new PROSE feature, the one that lets teachers dump the contract in the trash and do whatever for a five-year stretch, help them? Will charter lite be the salvation of our young people? Honestly, I doubt it. Since the secret to all those schools who send 100% of their students to four-year colleges is to get rid of each and every student who wouldn't graduate, I don't see how they do that. Unless, of course, some school wishes to change its contract to take all the rejects from the school in the next town. Can public schools juke the stats as well as charters? Odds are they can't.

And what about class size? I teach two double-period classes right now. One has 14 students and the other has 32. Guess which kids I can give more time to. The NYC class size has been 34 since I started teaching in 1984. This contract continues our proud tradition of doing absolutely nothing about it. I haven't heard a single word from UFT leadership substantively addressing class sizes in contracts in thirty years. UFT says if we reduce class sizes it will somehow net us less money, and of course they negotiated us an almost immediate two-percent raise. In fact, in four years, we'll have gotten the raise everyone else got four years ago. We got nothing back for putting off money for years, and the opportunity to accomplish something truly worthwhile has been unceremoniously squandered by short-sighted negotiators.

Will "master teachers" help our students? They'll be making an extra 20K a year. Have they been holding back their mastery until they get their money? Hope not. Anyway, they're going to help their colleagues. Oddly, great teachers I know help their colleagues as a matter of course. But the new wave of master teachers will be required to have highly effective junk science ratings. It could be that those I'd consider master teachers will not, and given that I place no value whatsoever on junk science ratings, I may not fully appreciate our upcoming crop of master teachers.

Great teachers, in my opinion, would go the extra mile for kids, and I'm not talking about test scores. Great teachers get to know the kids, inspire them to feel better about themselves, and reject nonsense from Common Core architect David Coleman saying no one cares how they feel. They encourage them to pursue what they're good at. They write beautiful recommendation letters and help kids pursue their dreams. They make kids do things they never knew they could do before. But I won't be picking them. Leadership Academy principals will, and they surely know better than we do. And in this new paradigm, what makes a master teacher is not any personal quality, but rather 20 thousand bucks a year.

Will we be creating master teachers by sending them to 80-minute meetings every Monday and Tuesday? I have my doubts.

This contract mostly helps Bill de Blasio. If we vote it up, we've imposed a crap pattern that every other union will have to take, the lowest pattern in my living memory, of 10% over seven years. And he will never have another round of negotiation unless he buys himself a Bloomberg-style third term.

I don't see a single benefit this contract has for our students. And if they should grow up and decide to be teachers, I'm not particularly sure how it benefits them even then, aside from almost keeping up with inflation.

Tell Truth About Contract, Asks UFT

Yesterday I got a slew of messages in my inbox encouraging me to get the truth out about the new contract. Apparently the NY Post has declared the UFT has declared war on education reform, and nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

For example, a few months ago Governor Cuomo saw fit to stand with Eva Moskowitz as she bused her hapless kids to Albany on a school day. He encouraged and passed legislation that circumvented Bill de Blasio's decision to deny 3 of Eva Moskowitz' numerous charters. He made sure that, in the future, the city would pick up her tab for rent. After all, her BFFs had just spent $5 mil sliming de Blasio, and one doesn't want to overextend one's self.

I remain horrified we did nothing to stop that. I only hope that it played no part in the abysmal nature of the proposed contract.

Mulgrew said a one-day 3020a hearing for ATR teachers was "fast and fair." He made this determination though said hearings have never taken place, and we have absolutely zero data on which to base this conclusion. And that, despite his frequent reminders, is no "myth." Mulgrew said many teachers who'd gotten off on 3020a were upset the process had taken so long. I have no doubt that is correct. This notwithstanding, I'm certain not one of them would have swapped out for a process in which losing their jobs in a single day was a possibility.

Now we can trust in the inherent fairness of the arbitrators, who routinely tack thousands of dollars in fines on those who are acquitted. We can hope that principals will do the right thing, and only write up ATR teachers who merit said writeups. We can hope that the kind folks at Tweed won't purposely send teachers they've targeted to principals who will do these writeups. But really, will all the stories we read, who's expecting the best from Leadership Academy grads?

I fail to see why ATR teachers deserve fewer due process rights than I do, and no I would not like to have the diminished hearing they do either.

I also have a huge problem being the union that dumps a crap pattern on our brother and sister unionists. 1.4% per year for seven years does not keep up with inflation in NYC, and will wipe out the gains they made when they, unlike the UFT, negotiated a very favorable two years of 4% raises. In fact, that is the lowest pattern in my living memory. And in the past, when we lent the city money, we got back interest and better working conditions, both of which current leadership failed to do.

The UFT's big scare tactic this year is not what they've used in the past--that the only alternative to signing this crappy contract is a strike. What they're saying is that we have to get in line behind 150 unions if we don't take it. If de Blasio fails to establish the pattern with us, he'll have to sell it to someone else.

Here's the thing--we're not getting a whole lot of money anyway. I can wait for 2%. I can wait for a bonus that, after taxes, will barely cover the 4 new tires I had to buy yesterday.

I can wait for a medical savings agreement I haven't read, an agreement that de Blasio says is enforceable by arbitration, because who knows what arbitrators will say, or whether or not they care about agreeing with UFT leadership?

But mostly, I can wait a long, long time before subjecting ATR teachers to second-tier due process.

Me--Free and Fair Contract Discussion, UFT Leadership--Crickets

On Friday I decided it would be a good idea to have a forum in which both sides of the contract proposal are examined. I asked my friend Julie Cavanagh if she would be interested in presenting the con side, and she agreed. I went to my principal and asked if we could use the school auditorium. He said if we got a permit and did so after school hours it was fine.

I then happened to be speaking to Geoff Decker from Chalkbeat NY, and he offered to moderate if we could find a time to fit his schedule. We envisioned either that a panel of him, me and someone pro-contract to select questions from the audience. We wanted to do something balanced. I asked my district rep, who said this would have to go before a UFT officer. So I wrote the following email to Janella Hinds, UFT VP for Academic High Schools:

Hi Janella,

We are trying to organize a forum on the contract, and are thinking about doing it next Thursday afternoon at FLHS. My committee would get a permit, and anyone who wished to co-sponsor could help pay. We think it will be between 100-300, depending on how large a room we use, with auditorium at 300.

We envision a pro and con speaker, equal opening and closing statements, and questions from the crowd taken by a committee consisting of one pro, one con, and one non-partisan, perhaps Geoff Decker of Chalkbeat NY. We envision giving each speaker equal time to answer each question.

Do you think UFT would be interested in participating in such a forum?

Arthur

Thus far, we've gotten no response. It doesn't appear UFT leadership is jumping up and down for a fair discussion of the agreement they brokered. That's too bad. If they have such great faith they've made a good decision, it behooves them to subject it to the sunlight of reasonable scrutiny.

If it's such a great deal, why wouldn't they jump at the opportunity? If we bloggers and opponents are spouting myths, as UFT President Mike Mulgrew repeatedly told the DA last Wednesday, why doesn't he grab this, a golden opportunity to demonstrate it?

UFT Contract Theme Song

In the year 2525,
if you are still alive,
If that contract can survive,
you may find....

In the year 3535,
Will you get retro or just more jive?
12.5 percent you worked so hard for,
got delayed for sixteenth world war.

In the year 4545,
You ain't gonna need to think of going on strike,
Union leaders working for you,
put off retro for a year or two

In the year 5555,
Ink on contract has long ago dried,
All your money's got nothin' to do
Interest earned doesn't go to you...



In the year 6565,
Wonderin' if you'll see that cash in your life,
You're not sure you can get that far,
Now they've made you an ATR.

In the year 7510,
3020a takes one minute by then,
Arbitrators stand up to say:
Guess it's time for the judgement day.

In the year 8510,
you fantasize you'll get paid by then,
You'll be livin' out in a tent,
cause you failed to pay back rent.

In the year 9595,
I'm kind a wond'rin' if you're gonna be alive,
Writing email from inside your tent,
Beggin' Mulgrew for that 8 percent...

Now it's been ten thousand years,
could've drunk a lot of beers,
But you chose to bide your time,
Thinking you'd afford fine wine...

But because we didn't fight,
for cash other unions were paid outright,
Retro seems so far away -
maybe it's only yesterday.

In the year 2525,
percentage you'd expected was five,
In the year 3535 . . .

Why Do We Have a Union?

A young UFT delegate asked me that question while she was watching UFT President Michael Mulgrew shut down Jamaica High School's James Eterno, for my money the most knowledgeable and resourceful chapter leader anywhere. Eterno, after listening for over an hour about the marvels and wonders of the new contract, attempted to give the other side.

We have a union so that demagogues like Michael Bloomberg cannot do to you what Michael Mulgrew did to Eterno. Without a union, you wouldn't be reading this right now, as anyone who spoke counter to the great and mysterious Bloomberg would have been sacked without a second thought. This was what Bloomberg was aiming for when he pushed a bill to end LIFO for NYC teachers only. Fortunately, our esteemed governor decided he could fire teachers effectively enough via junk science VAM.

We have a union so your supervisor can't push you to do ridiculous petty nonsense, even if she's from the Leadership Academy. If you don't feel like sleeping with her, that ought not to jeopardize your position. If you don't feel like washing her car or getting her dry cleaning, that too ought not to be problematic (unless perhaps you're angling for that 20K master teacher gig).

We have a union so that callow and untrained supervisors can't just walk all over you. In your school, you ought to have a chapter leader who knows the rules, or who can at least find out what the rules are, and make sure school leadership follows them. You ought not to get a letter in your file about bulletin boards, or about something that happened 22 years ago, for example.

We have a union so that reformy leaders face not only you, but tens of thousands of your brother and sister UFT members when they wish to enact pointless reforms. When they introduce their unproven and/ or failed nonsense, they at least have to get us to agree to it. They don't like steps like that, which is why they love mayoral control. In NYC, for example, the mayor had absolute dominion over our fake board of education and could do what the hell he wished, right until he crossed Eva Moskowitz, whose BFF Andy Cuomo imposed new law.

We have a union so you don't have to work nights and weekends, so you don't have to shovel coal to heat the classroom before you teach, so you don't have to carry a cell phone on which parents can contact you 24/ 7. We have a union so you can have a life and so that your employer doesn't own you.

I agree there are flaws in our union. Chapter leaders should represent the interests of their members rather than the interests of leadership. There ought not to be loyalty oaths, but rather open and honest discussion. We ought not to build brick walls around the likes of James Eterno, but rather utilize his talents for the benefit of all.  Within union, people ought to be selected for merit rather than blind loyalty.

Were that the case, we wouldn't alienate over 80% of membership to the point they deem it a waste of their time to even write an X on a ballot.

We can work on that. We can try to wake up our sleepy membership. We can try to get leadership to listen rather than shut us up.

But I'm absolutely confident, for all its glaring flaws, we're better off with union than without.

On the Proposed UFT Contract

 Note: This piece appeared originally on Diane Ravitch's blog.

It’s been almost six years since NYC teachers have received a raise. This was particularly frustrating since most NYC employees received twin raises of 4% in the 2008-2010 round of pattern bargaining. While they got more money with no givebacks, our leadership helped craft the junk-science based NY APPR law. The entire state got a junk-science based evaluation system. We were told the beauty of it was that it could be negotiated, but when that didn’t work out leadership allowed John King to write it for us.

Now there is an agreement, but UFT members will receive not only the retro money, but also the salary raises almost a decade later than FDNY, NYPD, or DSNY. Being a teacher, I don’t know a whole lot about money. Still, I’m fairly certain that money has more value in 2010 than 2020, when we will finally be made whole. It’s plainly disingenuous to argue we have parity with the other unions.

There are other issues in this contract that are troubling. Paramount to me is that of due process for ATR teachers. The UFT agreed in 2005 to create the Absent Teacher Reserve. The UFT had supported mayoral control, which helped enable the massive school closures favored by Bloomberg, and rather than insist teachers in closing schools be placed in classrooms, it made them wandering subs, covering for absent teachers. They now wander from school to school, week to week. They are vilified and stereotyped in the media on a regular basis.

I’ve worked with and advocated for several ATR teachers. I can assure you, despite the nonsense propagated by self-styled expert Campbell Brown, that those teachers were guilty of nothing more than either being in the wrong school at the right time, or being targeted for no good reason .  Under our new system, any ATR teacher accused by two principals of ineffective behavior will receive an expedited one-day 3020a hearing, after which this person may be fired on the spot. I fail to see why ATR teachers should have fewer due process rights than I do.

As for Ms. Campbell Brown, apparently there is  hat tip in the agreement to her:

The rules also expand the definition of sexual misconduct, which will make it easier for the city to fire teachers for actions like inappropriate touching or texting, officials said.

I can’t really say whether or not this rule is reasonable, since neither I nor anyone who voted on this agreement has actually seen it. Generally, it would be shocking that a 300-member contract committee could approve an agreement it hadn’t seen. However since the overwhelming majority of that committee were members of the elite, invitation-only UFT Unity Caucus, and had signed an oath promising to support whatever leadership told them to, it would not be surprising to me if they had nominated a cheese sandwich for President of the United States.

We’re also looking at a program that strongly smells of merit pay, something that’s been tried and failed in the US for about a century. This is the UFT’s second flirtation with such a program, and like the last one, discarded as a failure, it is presented as not merit pay.

Another mysterious issue in the proposal is this:

Under the tentative deal, collaborative school communities will have new opportunities to innovate outside the confines of the UFT contract and DOE regulations. A new program known as Progressive Redesign Opportunity Schools for Excellence (PROSE) will give educators in participating schools greater voice in decision-making and a chance to experiment with new strategies.

This sounds very much like the original concept of charter schools, and we all know where that has led us. I’m wary of anything with “excellence” in the title, because it clearly implies those of us who do not participate somehow oppose excellence. Also, there is a clear implication in such programs that our Contract somehow hinders excellence, which I do not believe.

My experience and observation suggests schools do better with strong principals and strong chapter leaders being adversarial when necessary, but working together when it benefits the school. I’ve also observed schools with little or no union presence having programs imposed on them that are less than productive, and I can certainly envision that happening here.

I’m further puzzled by several things UFT President Michael Mulgrew wrote us when he announced the agreement.

The union won major changes, including a focus on eight instead of 22 Danielson components and a better system for rating teachers in non-tested subjects.

I have heard directly from union sources that they'd insisted on focusing on all of Danielson, and that making them focus on all aspects was a great victory. Apparently making them focus on fewer factors is also a victory. We shall see what happens with non-tested subjects.

A more substantive improvement might have been to let supervisors off the hook from so many observations. If a competent supervisor observes a teacher doing a good job, and receives no complaints about that teacher, the supervisor ought not to have to revisit that teacher 3 to 5 additional times that year. Supervisors ought to be focusing their attention on supporting teachers who actually need their help.

We succeeded in eliminating time-consuming teaching artifacts.

Again, union sources have told me directly that the inclusion of artifacts was a great union victory, empowering teachers. Apparently the exclusion is also a victory. When the union does one thing, it's a great victory. When they do the opposite, it's another great victory. I’m troubled by that.

Moving forward, fellow educators — rather than consultants or other third parties — will serve as the "validators" brought in the next year to review the work of a teacher rated ineffective.

In 3020a hearings, in which teachers can be fired, the burden of proof has traditionally been on the DOE to establish teacher incompetence. The validators would have had the option of placing the burden on teachers to establish they were not incompetent, a very high hurdle. Now, though this practice has never even been tested, with no evidence whatsoever, it is deemed to be improved. I would not wish to ever sit in judgment of my colleagues as to whether or not the city should have to establish their incompetence. I would question the motives of any colleague who would.

I fail to see why my brother and sister UFT members deserve any less financial consideration than those in other municipal unions. As for the other factors in this contract, the devil is in the details. Thus far we haven’t seen them, but history suggests a lack of foresight in insular UFT leadership, which has supported allowing teachers to become ATRs, charter schools, co-locations, the NYS APPR law, junk science teacher rating, Common Core, and mayoral control, none of which have helped public school teachers, parents or children.

Finally, I’m not particularly proud that we’re set to impose a pattern for all other city unions that will not allow them even to keep up with inflation for the next 7 years. If the best we can do is worsen conditions for our brother and sister unionists, we’re not doing our jobs very well at all.

Breaking...(updated to include leaked memo)

Update: A UFT source tells me the memo below is not part of any agreement, but rather a proposal from the city. This source tells me that it constitutes no part of the actual agreement.

A leaked memo, now posted below, suggests we may be making contributions to health care of up to 2% of salary. This would apply to anyone earning over 60k. It starts at 30-40k at 0.5%. This directly contradicts things we've been hearing.

From Harris Lirtzman:

Am getting messages that Point 4 of a highly technical summary of the proposed changes to the municipal health care plan included in the proposed UFT contract and approved yesterday by the Municipal Labor Council appears to require that an RFP be issuedon July 1 for new plans to be implemented on July 1, 2015 (Michael Bloomberg had planned to issue such an RFP but the plan was halted after the Municipal Labor Council got a court ruling overturning plans to release it) and that Point 10 allows for employee contributions to health care coverage starting at .5% of salary for members earning between $30,000 and $40,000, 1% of salary between $40,000 and $50,000, 1.5% of salary between $50,000 and $60,000 and 2% of salary above $60,000.

If any of this is true (and the paper is in many peoples' hands right now) and any of it is actually put into effect it constitutes a direct and bad faith representation by our leadership about what this contract settlement really includes.

Related: James Eterno has finally read the MOA, you know, the one the UFT Contract Committee and UFT Executive Board voted up sight unseen, and he says it does not bode well for ATR teachers. 

Update: Memo we received is below. If it proves accurate, it will mean that there is indeed a cost for members for the much ballyhooed health savings. Note point 4, and particularly point 10, which is highlighted:

NYC Projected Health Savings

y Potential Program Changes- Description and Effective Date



1.    DEVA{effective 1011114)

•   Savings  estimate  of $1OOM based on dependents at a savings of $2,000 per dependent.

•   Savings  are based on premium  reductions (20,443 family contracts moving  to individual).

•   Average savings per contract  converted to individual  (from family) $8,546.



2.     Equalization (effective  7/l/14)

•   There would be no payment  for FY '15  but the FY '14  payment  would still be made in May 2015.

•   Eliminates payment  equal  to difference between  the HIP HMO premium  rates and the CBP (GHI/Empire)

rates for the CBP enrollment.
•   Eliminate  all future payments to Stabilization Fund- for example dividends will not go to SF.

•   Does not apply to Medicare  enrollees.

•   Current obligations from stabilization fund  would continue to be met through  FY'18  (est $200  mil/year).



3.    Self-Fund  (step  I  effective  1/l/15, step 2 effective  7/l/15)

•   Assuming  that a change  in funding  for GHI/Empire and to HlP HMO plans will require an RFP process, the change to self-funding'for.the'I>PO and  HMO plans will be combined  with the RFP process to market all plans and become effective 7/i/15..
•   The HMO plan will need to become an EPO plan.

•   In the interim, there will be a change  to minimum  premium  method  on the GHI CBP plan effective  7/l/14.

•   Currently, the Welfare  Fu"nds s.s::lf-fund their prescription drugs and other health benefits  through  the

Welfare Funds, and'the elf-funded PICA program  are co-administered with the unions.

•   Assets will be set aside to fund  Incurred-But-Not-Reported (IBNR)  claims and therefore,  there will be no un-funded  liability.
•   Union concerns re ability to pay extraordinarily large claims  will be addressed.

•   There will be an annual  allocation/budgetary review.



4. Market all plans (including HIP HMO) (New plans effective 7/1/15

Release RFP 7/1/14

•

•   Applies to all plans currently  available to Actives and Pre-65 Retirees

•   Process will include an effort to minimize  member disruption (i.e., members  whose  PCP is not in the new network).
•   The City has the right to contract.

•   Regular market checks  and required  RPFs every 3 to 5 years.







5.     Medicare  to Medicare  Advantage {effective 1/l/16)

•   Members covered  by GHI Senior  Care (or another  Medicare  wrap-around plan) will be converted  to a

Medicare  Advantage Plan.
•   There will be no impact to members  from this change;  plan design and network  will be similar or better.



6.    Buy-Up Contributions {effective  7/1/15)

•   Applied to Actives and pre-65 Retirees.

•   Assumes  NYC contribution is the cost of the PPO plan (currently  GHI CBP/Empire). Members would have to pay the difference in costs ifthey elect a higher cost plan.
•   Going forward, new entrants  will only be allowed  to join a central  PPO plan offered to City members.

•   By doing market checks and RFPs, we hope to reduce the buy-up costs of those still on the exotic plans.

•   This does not apply to retirees.



7.    More Effective Delivery ofHealthcare

•  The City will require certain  types of non-emergency care to be subject  to case management:  For example,  to avoid Emergency  Room utilization,the City would incent members through  plan design to use Minute Clinics,  Urgent Care Facilities,  Nurselines, etc.
•   This does not apply to retirees.



Consolidate Rx  Purchasing {effective 111115)                     

I (_/  •  City will sponsor  a centralized Prescription Drug program, administered by a PBM, to provide drug coverage  to the City's members.
•   Each union will have the ability  to purchase  that plan for their membership.

•   This provides savings  to Welfare funds but no savings  to City.

•   This does not apply to ret jrees.   .-



9.   ACA Provisions{effective 111/15)

•   Adopting  ACA provisions would affect the Women's Preventive  Health Services,  including the availability  of contraceptives.
•   Adopting ACA prqvisions would also include the calculation of maximum out-of;pocket costs, after which everything is paid at 100%.   For this,City health benefits co-pays & all Welfare  Fund co-pays would need to be coordinated, as the City would  be responsible for both parts in thecalculation. There needs to be a consolidation and sharing of information going forward.
•    Other

•   This does not apply to retirees.

10.  Contributions



Salary

<$30,000

Contribution Percentage of Salary

0.0%

$30,000  - $40,000

0.5%

$40,000  - $50,000

1.0%

$50,000  - $60,000

1.5%

$60,000+

2.0%






More Effective Delivery of Healthcare

 •  The City will require certain types of non-emergency care to be received at certain types





of facilities and through certain types of vendors.



The City and the Unions would agree on pre-determined facilities and organizations where members would receive thiscare.

Centers of Excellence consist of providers and facilities who specialize in a particular type of service or care andtypically produce better healthcare outcomes at more reasonable costs. Providers who provide a higher quantity ofservices will ideally have better outcomes for those services.

Centers of Excellence would be required for non-emergency services such as:

o    Cancer Treatments o    Cardiac Care

o    Knee and Hip Replacements

o    Bariatric Surgery

For Radiology and Laboratory Services, members would need to receive care at a pre­ specified location. The City wouldcontract with an organization who providers quality, low-cost Radiology and Laboratory services.

o   This would include a well-developed  pre-authorization program to avoid inappropriate use of a high-costservices.
Necessary Emergency Ca're yvolild·not be subject to these requirements.

The City will also expand Gity-owned facilities to provide care to members. This will enhance the City's hospital facili   and will provide high-quality, lower-cost care



the members. Merpbers would   e r quire to use a City-C\wned facility wtlen possible for certain services.       .   ..   .  .

To avoid Emergency Room utilization, the City would incant members through plan

design to use Minute Clinics, Urgent Care Facilities, Nurselines, etc.

Whither the Two-Hundred New Schools Under the Current Contract Proposal?

President Barack Obama, "by virtue of the authority vested" in him by the Constitution of the United States, proclaimed May 4th through May 10th, 2014, as National Charter Schools Week (Obama Proclamation).

Only a day before, on May 1st, I learned that the U.F.T. had agreed to a contract with some dubious propositions.  Leaving aside the long delay in receiving long overdue raises, there was a stipulation to allow for up to 200 schools (or 10%) of the City's total to opt out of U.F.T. and D.O.E. rules with the approval of 65% of school personnel.  

This provision seems to raise more questions than it answers.  Teachers in these schools will still pay union dues, but they may lose out on many protections of the contract.  I have read differing interpretations about how these proposed new schools might bend some of the old rules.  According to some interpretations, they might develop original curriculum, extend the school day or the school year (The Post, May 2, 2014).  Other sources indicated that principals and staff in schools might have greater latitude in hiring and firing fellow workers. 

The Mayor and the U.F.T. bill the agreement as a breath of fresh air, creating laboratories for educational innovation, free of U.F.T. and D.O.E. rules.   They believe these new schools will act like states in our federal system, sites for experimentation.  Then, their successful strategies can, perhaps, be adopted across the City.  Excepting prohibition laws, the states, more often than not, have experimented with extending rights.  But, charters seem to diminish rights.  Ninety percent of six thousand or more charters operate without union protections or the right of collective bargaining.  The U.F.T. already runs some of its own charters and, indeed, represents some others.  What will these new charter-like schools look like?  What rights will teachers have and what rights will they lose?  Will the Union as a whole be hurt by it all?

The charter-school advocates see the provisions as a concession to charter superiority.  The Post used the quote, "If you can't beat charter schools, join 'em." In the same article, Jenny Sedlis, the executive director of StudentsFirstNY, was quoted as saying, "By emulating some of the best practices to come out of the charter-school movement, the administration continues to evolve on charters and recognize their important place in the city's educational landscape."  She adds, "I would hope that they keep looking to the best charters for ideas of how to improve the entire system."

I wonder if the ideas below are some of the charter innovations to which Sedlis refers:

1.  Excluding students, notably those with special needs and limited language abilities

2.  High Elementary-School Suspensions (14-22% at the "Success" Academies)

3.  Firing students as a means to perfect graduation rates.

4.  Excessive Test Prep

5.  Fancy Uniforms (like those of Success Academy)

6.  Over-funding charters (here and here)

7.  Overcrowding underfunded public schools

8.  Strict Rules with sometimes egregious punishments, including padded cells and fines

9.  Humiliating teachers and students by posting rankings

10.  Increasing segregation, particularly in NYC

Truly public-schools, unlike many current charters, can never and should never reject populations, permanently throw misbehaving students out the door or suspend the living daylights out of kids.  The 200 schools potentially created under the new contract will probably not throw students out, but without many teacher protections, will due process be out the door for teachers?  

It is clear to me that Albert Shanker's original vision for charter schools (before he became severely disenchanted with the entire idea) was significantly different from those of President Obama and many current charters whom the current "reformers" champion.  I hope the U.F.T. realizes the differences:

1.  Reformers today put a premium on test scores as the ultimate measure of success.  Shanker realized in 1988 that one of the greatest problems with education reform is "the great obsession with standardized testing" (p. 3).  By contrast, when Obama declared his National Charter Schools Week today, he mentioned "standards and accountability."  We all know what that means.

2.  Shanker realized that "top-down" reform cannot work (p.4).  He favored "bottom-up" (p. 9).  He objected to the one "magic bullet" or "one pill" (p. 7) offered to everybody by lawmakers (and I would add elitists with little-to-no classroom experience or knowledge of child psychology) "who haven't been near a child for years" (p. 30).  I would say he pretty much predicted the coming of the Common Core.   

3.  Shanker hoped his experimental schools could be used to help the neediest.  Those who "are not able to sit still and listen for that many hours, and are not able to read that long" (p.7).  He wanted to protect these children from humiliation.  Many of the charters today expel such children.  

4.  Although Shaker wanted to give his charters greater latitude for experimentation, he did not see any weakening of teachers or of their unions in these schools.  Indeed, he favored "a strong union leader" and strong management, both operating with mutual respect.  He thought the greatest laboratories for creative experimentation would exist "where there is a strong collective bargaining relationship" (p. 9).  

5.  The new U.F.T. contract calls for a 65% vote to modify the school.  Shanker did not hold out the greatest hopes for NYC schools which modified their union contracts by a 75% vote (legal at the time, 1988).   He said teachers felt as if "You're forcing me to do something that I didn't want to do."  He likened it to shoving reform down people's throats (p. 19).  I think we all know too much about that these days!  I wonder what will happen if schools achieve the 65% vote under the new proposal and become "laboratories of change."  What about the 35% of teachers who voted otherwise and may be dissatisfied?  The laboratory may tell them to change or give them their walking papers.

6.  In order to get around this obstacle, Shanker suggested "magnet schools" within schools.  No one would have reform shoved down their throats.  He made it clear that in his vision of public-school charters there would be no segregation.  Instead, there would be a "mix of students in those schools" which "would have to reflect the school as a whole, and therefore what we're talking about is not inferior students or superior students; we're really talking about a group of parents and teachers who want to do something that is different" (p. 22).  In his Proclamation of National Charter Schools Week, 2014, Obama seems to agree that charters should demonstrate "that all their students are progressing toward academic excellence" and that there is an "investment in every child."  Yet, we know that this is clearly not the case; charters dump rejects out the door like hot potatoes.  How else would they insure perfect graduation rates for their financial backers?

Much remains to be seen.  Can the new prototype of cutting-edge schools be truly teacher driven?  Will they be "bottom-up" and help the neediest kids?  Will the rights of all workers be respected or will 35% be pariahs?  Will teachers receive standard contractual protections?  Will these schools be able to compete with the high-end, highly segregated charters?  Will they be closed down by a future mayor some day if they cannot compete?  Who will measure success and how will success be measured?  Will these schools further strengthen our democracy or will they further weaken it?  

Breaking...

Sources are telling me the UFT Executive Board is planning to vote on the Memorandum of Agreement for the proposed contract sight unseen, as did the much-vaunted 300-member Contract Committee.

Update: More at ICE-UFT blog.

Update 2: UFT tweets they voted it up. 

How Much Does This Contract Cost?

There were no givebacks in the 2008-2010 round of contract bargaining for FDNY, NYPD, or DSNY. They got 4% one year, and 4% the next. That was pretty much it.

UFT, on the other hand, went to Albany to help write a draconian junk science law that makes every teacher in the state subject to VAM, which AFT President Randi Weingarten now refers to as a sham. Would that we had known that before agreeing to it. In any case, we were told, the system would have to be negotiated, and we would get a say, and that's why the system was so incredibly wonderful.

Of course we got the evaluation system without the contract, nothing was negotiated, and fanatical ideologue John King unilaterally decided on our system. Though neither the DOE nor the UFT wanted 4-6 annual evaluations, King did, so that was it. Now supervisors had to spend as much time observing teachers doing a great job as those who needed help, so less help was available for teachers in need. Yet another stroke of brilliance from the man who deems Common Core a panacea for our children (but not his own).

A UFT rep came to my school and told my members that the UFT was very smart, and that we would get our contract. After all, he said, there could be no evaluation system without a modification to contract. Alas, we did, in fact, get the evaluation system without the contract. Members routinely ask me to invite this rep back so they can scream at him. I've thus far declined.

Did FDNY, NYPD, or DSNY get a new junk-science based evaluation system for their relatively great increases? I think not. Yet our leadership not only enabled it, but placed it in the hands of a three-year charter school teacher who sees fit to fail 70% of our children. I suppose you could say that wasn't a contract giveback, since our leadership saw fit to enable it for nothing. The day after it was passed, Mayor Mike Bloomberg boasted he'd gotten the most draconian observation system in the state, and didn't have to give one dime to do so.

Mayor Bloomberg also threatened to lay off teachers. UFT responded by canceling sabbaticals for a year and sending our ATR teachers as week-to-week wanderers, homeless travelers with very little chance of settling anywhere. I was at the DA where we voted on this and several highly-placed UFT-Unity told me this would never happen. "The DOE is too inept," they said.

So perhaps that wasn't a giveback either. But they were wrong about the evaluation plan being tied to a contract. They were wrong about the DOE being unable to rotate ATR teachers. They were wrong about being able to negotiate the junk-science plan.

Perhaps they're right about there being no givebacks, if you don't consider lending tens of thousands of dollars to the city a giveback, if you don't consider waiting four more years to get the raise other unions got four years ago a giveback, if you don't consider not giving teachers who resigned retro pay a giveback, and if you don't consider one day 3020a hearings for ATR teachers a giveback, and if you don't consider setting a new pattern that fails even to keep pace with inflation a giveback.

But guess what?

We are not, by any stretch of the imagination, achieving parity, or even the pattern that NYPD, FDNY, or DSNY got. Maybe that's not a giveback either.

And maybe this is the best our leadership can do. I acknowledge that.

I can only conclude that what we need is leadership that can do what NYPD, FDNY, or DSNY leadership can do. We need leadership that can get the pattern that other unions receive, which should be a no-brainer. We need leadership that can establish a pattern that at least meets the rate of inflation.

I further conclude that UFT members deserve at least the same consideration our brother and sister unionists received, and what we're being offered is far from it.

Top 10 Reasons Common Core Isn't Good for Bill Gates', John King's, Andrew Cuomo's, or Barack Obama's Kids

Have you ever seen a guinea pig with a silver spoon in its mouth?

Have you ever wondered why educational reform is supposedly good for most people's children, but not for most of the children of the "reformers"?  Perhaps you've been afraid to ask yourself this question.  Well, I found myself wondering about it the other day.  So, here are my top ten guesses why educational reformers might think their brainy ideas don't merit experimentation upon their own children, only upon other people's children.

10.  Let's start with Rhee who claims she is a "public-school parent"--which according to her definition means one child attends a public school while the other attends a private institution, free from all this reform stuff.  One child must be the statistical control. 

9.  Perhaps students in private schools have biological immunity from the Common Core based upon their superior brain power--whilst the rest of the population is highly susceptible to the contagion. 

8.  If Common Core really works as posited, one might expect an overwhelming surge in demand from the private schools.  They would succumb to the irresistible force of attraction to the Core, surely stronger than gravity itself.  Perhaps private schools are holding out for the same type of spectacular grants that attracted the states.  Maybe they hope large "bribes" will be placed at their doorsteps?

7.  Perhaps by withholding the smack Common-Core standards from private schools, corporate-minded reformers seek to drive these schools out of business.  Parents will no longer pay steep private fees when they realize their children are not being molded into expert test takers.  The schools will fail and Common-Core reformers can then take them over, thereby earn fantastic profits as well as free tuition for their own children.

6.  Perhaps educational reformers see a conflict of interest in sending their children to schools that practice what they preach/teach.  Maybe they think it is akin to placing a child in a class taught by a parent.  So, they have nobly decided to sacrifice the  greater good of their children by withholding from them the unquestionable benefits of the Common Core.

5.  Maybe there is something in the title "Common Core" that is adverse to their lifestyle.  Maybe if the private-school version was "re-branded" the "Uncommon Core" maybe, just maybe, it might be good enough for them. Then, they would have no need to rub elbows with the Commoners or, indeed, any Common stuff at all.

4.  Perhaps following their Common-Core free private-school day, the reformers' children study all night at South-Korean style test prep centers.  They may even have private tutors who secretly prep them, Common-Core-style, from behind the security of the fortified gates of their feudal-like estates.

3.  Maybe reformers don't actually think the Core is good for us, but barring any better idea they have thrust it upon us as part of their personal responsibilities as the noblesse oblige.

2.  Maybe they want to keep us bound to their standardized tests like a medieval serf to the soil.  Maybe they realize that we will never be the lords of the manor, so Common Core will suffice.  We are all equally guaranteed the standardized mush they serve up.  It is all we need to survive.

1.  Perhaps something in the nature of the composition of the silver (which should be Ag, #47 on the Periodic Table to any Kindergarten child today) spoon stuck in their children's mouths make them impervious to educational reform.

Or, could it be something entirely different?

In Which I Give NYC an Interest-Free Loan of $40,000

That's what I'm doing, isn't it? After all, the cops, the firefighters, and the sanitation workers got an 8% raise four years ago. I won't get mine until 2020, according to this agreement.

And don't think I'm generous, because you won't get yours either. Now if you haven't yet reached maximum, you haven't lent the city 40K. Rather, you've given it more like a loan for the price of a new compact car. And yet, if you went to Citibank to borrow for that compact car, I very much doubt they'd give you the same terms.

That's because people who know about money understand its value. They understand that an amount of money in 2010 is not the same amount of money in 2020, even though the dollar number hasn't changed. I've been a teacher for most of my adult life, so I'm far from a financial expert. But even I know that it's disingenuous to claim our deal has parity with that of other city unions. Don't get me wrong--I begrudge them nothing.

But we are clearly not getting what they got. 8% over two years is the only pattern in my living memory that appears attractive, and we are not getting it, no matter what the UFT email claims. I would not have been upset with putting off retro pay. I fully expected it, and would not have complained about it.

But I expected my members to go to work in September with an 8% raise, the raise that's eluded us for almost six years. UFT leadership has managed to put that off for yet another four years, degrading it into four 2% raises. And it is, in fact, a 2% raise that awaits us in September, along with a bonus payment and very little retro.

That's a pretty large slap in the face after waiting all these years. And then comes the old, old song from leadership, "It was the best we could do."

I believe that's true. UFT leadership shuts out rank and file, conferring only with those who've signed loyalty oaths and are not permitted the luxury of free thought, let alone expression of opinions. By sitting in their cone of silence they've managed to persuade over 80% of working UFT members that voting in union elections is a waste of time. Most teachers are disenfranchised, demoralized and cynical. They're represented largely by chapter leaders who have taken an oath to never disagree with leadership.

It's no wonder they make such miserable bargains and spend all their time telling us and one another what wonderful jobs they do. It's no wonder they expect us to be so ignorant we don't know the difference between money now and money ten years later. But it won't be our ignorance that sells this contract.

It will be our cynicism and lack of willingness to engage. These are both miserable qualities for teachers. But that's what you get when your leadership opts to reside in an echo chamber. 

UFT Contract Committee Votes Up MOA Without Even Looking at It

 Related: For more detail, you must read the ICE-UFT blog today:

For those of you expecting to go back in the fall and at least have the 4%+4% added to your pay, forget it.
The 4 % + 4% that other unions received in 2009-10 will not be added to our salary schedules until the increases kick in one year at a time starting in 2015.  Here is how the 8% will be added in:
May 1, 2015 = 2%
May 1, 2016 = 2%
May 1, 2017 = 2%
May 1, 2018 = 2%
All we get added to our salaries now if we ratify is 1% for 2013 followed by 1% for 2014 and the $1,000 bonus.

James Eterno reports that the contract committee held a vote, and that there was only one official abstention announced. James reports he abstained, and that he doesn't vote for anything until he sees it.  Go figure.

Though there was no memorandum of agreement, the committee, consisting overwhelmingly of oath-obeying Unity members, voted in favor of recommending it to the Municipal Labor Committee, and eventually to the UFT Delegate Assembly.

As you may know, the UFT Delegate Assembly will vote for a cheese sandwich, if that's what they're told. But here's the thing--you aren't walking in to work in September to get that 8% raise everyone else got five years ago. Don't expect to see even that 8% for a few years.

"We're not going to bankrupt the city," said Eterno.

I suspect the NY Post will disagree.

If two principals cite unprofessional behavior for ATRs they will be brought to an expedited 3020a in which they can be fired in one day. However, burden of proof will still be on DOE.

Mr. Mulgrew Writes Me a Letter About the Contract

There is an agreement on a new teacher contract between the city and the UFT, one that gets us the 8% that's eluded us all these years, and establishes some crap pattern for the following years. Having gone so very long without a raise, it's hard to imagine UFT voting against it. There are, as always, concerns. There is the slippery slope of saving money on health care, and it appears our uniformed brothers and sisters have concerns about that they may be funding teacher raises with health givebacks.

...opposition has surfaced from leaders of the city’s uniformed unions, who fear they may be asked for health care givebacks to fund teacher raises.

We'll see what happens with that, and Mulgrew says he needs the approval of the Municipal Labor Committee.

City Hall suddenly began pressing late last week for a quick pact with the teachers after weeks of leisurely bargaining, sources told the Daily News.

Perhaps this is so they can establish the crap pattern.

Then there's my biggest issue, that of ATR teachers, which, if this is to be believed, have something less than a rosy future:

The deal also includes reforms to various rules, including changes to the “Absent Teacher Reserve pool,” where teachers are sent if they can’t find work in city classrooms. The new contract will include rules that allow the city to permanently fire teachers if, for instance, they are twice returning to the pool for poor performance by principals. 

The fact is, we are all ATRs, or on the verge of becoming ATRs. Though Bill de Blasio does not appear to be insane, that doesn't mean he will be mayor forever, and who's to say another Bloomberg won't buy his way in? Firing people for no good reason has not worked well in Chicago, and will not likely work well anywhere. If this proves to be true I will not support this contract.

And there's a hat tip to legal expert Campbell Brown.

The rules also expand the definition of sexual misconduct, which will make it easier for the city to fire teachers for actions like inappropriate touching or texting, officials said.

Once again we are solving a non-existent emergency.  Every time we concede to reformy types for no reason it lends credence to their causes and degrades our profession.

There are other things, right from Mulgrew's email, that have me shaking my head.

The union won major changes, including a focus on eight instead of 22 Danielson components and a better system for rating teachers in non-tested subjects.

I have heard directly from union sources that they'd insisted on focusing on all of Danielson, and that making them focus on all aspects was a great victory. Apparently making them focus on fewer factors is also a victory. We shall see what happens with non-tested subjects. And I'm very curious as to whether we'll see fewer evaluations where they aren't needed.

We succeeded in eliminating time-consuming teaching artifacts.

Again, union sources have told me directly that the inclusion of artifacts was a great union victory. Apparently the exclusion is also a victory. When the union does one thing, it's a great victory. When they do the opposite, it's another great victory. With a philosophy like that, you can't lose. And with hundreds of loyalty-oath signing reps who'd vote for a cheese sandwich if asked, you really can't lose.

How can you trust people who tell you they win when they do one thing, then turn around and tell you they win when they do precisely the opposite?

Moving forward, fellow educators — rather than consultants or other third parties — will serve as the "validators" brought in the next year to review the work of a teacher rated ineffective.

You will likely recall that the "validators," the ones who would decide whether or not the burden of proof would lie with the DOE to establish your incompetence, were also labeled as a great union victory. Now, though this practice has never even been tested, with no evidence whatsoever, it is deemed to be improved. I would not wish to ever sit in judgement of my colleagues as to whether or not they would receive due process. I would question the motives of any colleague who would.

New teacher leadership positions, with extra pay, will foster idea-sharing by allowing exemplary teachers to remain teachers while extending their reach to help others.

Merit pay, anyone? I know, the last failed merit pay program wasn't a merit pay program either.

Under the tentative deal, collaborative school communities will have new opportunities to innovate outside the confines of the UFT contract and DOE regulations. A new program known as Progressive Redesign Opportunity Schools for Excellence (PROSE) will give educators in participating schools greater voice in decision-making and a chance to experiment with new strategies.

In other words, no contract for you. I am personally dubious of anything that is "for excellence," as there is an implication the rest of us are not. That's why terms like that are chosen, and it's disappointing to see the union taking part in it.

The proposed agreement also obligates the DOE to provide educators in core subjects with appropriate curriculum, something which we have long fought for.

And I'm sure the geniuses at DOE will do a much better job than, say, you or your colleagues, who most certainly don't know your students better than the Tweedies.

Mayor de Blasio and Chancellor Fariña are committed to returning joy to New York City's classrooms and respect to its educators. 

Personally, I will feel no joy whatsoever if a single ATR teacher or counselor loses her job. And neither should anyone, from President Michael Mulgrew all the way down to lowly teachers like you and me.

Eva Moskowitz Collects 7.5 Million, Buys a Governor

Naturally, I was heartbroken when mean old Bill de Blasio tried to keep his campaign promise and blocked a few Moskowitz academies. After all, if they don't go up, how will all the zillionaires spend their money? What will they invest in? Certainly not public schools that take and keep everyone. Now that Reformy John King has rigged the tests so that 70% of our children will fail, who wants any part of that?

A much better system is school choice. That's the system in which schools choose their students and send all the others back to those awful public schools. Then you get fabulous test scores and they all look like they suck. Except, of course, when you don't. On those occasions you have to take extreme measure, like dumping an entire cohort. Or two.

But Eva did very well the other night, thank you very much. After her BFFs spent over 5 million dollars on a television campaign to make sure Bill de Blasio could not do what he elected them to do, they had a big gala, featuring legal expert Campbell Brown, and threw over seven million dollars at her. That's ironic, because these are the very people who say you can't just throw money at a problem.

But that, of course, refers to lowly public schools. Governor Cuomo, who not only endorsed but spoke at the school-day rally where Eva dragged her hapless kids, can't be bothered to fund them. That's why he so adores the Gap Elimination Adjustment that makes sure we balance the state budget on the backs of schoolchildren. And just in case that doesn't get the job done, he's set a tax cap in place. Because Andrew Cuomo is the student lobbyist, he's made sure that people who say no to kids get more of a vote than those who say yes. Therefore districts outside of NYC need a super-majority of 60% to overcome the tax cap of 2% or rate of inflation, whichever is lower.

But that doesn't mean Andy Cuomo isn't the student lobbyist. What it means is that he only lobbies for the 3% of NY schoolchildren who attend charters. After all, those of us whose kids attend public school can't give him 800K we know about, and who knows how many vital suitcases full of cash, like Eva's BFFs can.

It's a question of values. And it's pretty clear to me, at least, that Governor Andy highly values the highest bidder.