UFT and Janus--Can We Be Proactive Beyond Collecting Dues?

I couldn't make it to the DA Wednesday night, though I wanted to go. I understand this was the big release for the UFT app. I know that because I just got an email from Michael Mulgrew, asking me to install the app. I did and now can see Frankenstein, the Musical at a discount. I can get discounts at Heavenly Crumbs and Chatime Bubble Tea. You've got a whole lot of phone numbers at your fingertips. The possibilities are endless, and I'm sure it will be improved upon. Still, I kind of wish it hadn't taken a gun to the union's head to produce it.

Evidently, this isn't the same app I'll be using to sign up members in my building, but there is an app for that. I actually have to give UFT numbers of thirty or so of us who will be trying to sign up our 300 members. It's a big job, and I didn't love it a lot. Someone had to assign about ten members to each of the thirty plus, and despite my best intentions otherwise, it turned out to be me.

We will each get a list, and we will be able to sign up people as union via our phones. It's a good idea, I think. This is the first time I've actually collected phone numbers for the union, though I've been asked on multiple previous occasions. I don't mind the face to face, but the prep work was no fun.

For me union is a moral imperative. Though I've skipped a few nights this week, and though I've gotten more sleep than I'd had any right to hope for, I don't spend my free time running to 52 Broadway just for laughs. I don't do it for money either (though as an Exec. Board member they now reimburse my parking and tolls). So it's hard for me to respect people's decisions to say, "Screw it. I'm not paying." When these people don't pay, it will be my work and money (and yours) carrying them.

There is a new law in NY, though, and I wasn't sure it was going to be successful until Chaz said so. I don't always agree with Chaz, but when he makes a wholly unexpected statement like this I have to. A lot of people will kick and scream, but I'm not sure how many will be hiring lawyers to rep them when the principal says they threw that cheeseburger at a student. Also, I'm not sure how effective a lawyer would be, even if his tie turned out to be considerably nicer than mine.

I'm glad, though, not to have to provide services for people who reject the work that we do. It really makes me sad when I meet members who decide the entire UFT sucks because one decision didn't go their way. I negotiate a lot, and I go to a lot of hearings, and decisions don't always go my way either. I can't manually insert brains into arbitrators, and much as I wish they came pre-installed, they blather any way they choose and make ridiculous decisions. (Of course, sometimes they're right, and those are the times we hope for.)

So I have to say, even though I don't always approve of leadership, they made a good deal here. Of course, the timing was great, with Andrew Cuomo intent on convincing America he's the Second Coming of Bernie Sanders. Andrew Cuomo reminds me of a character called Mr. Haney on Green Acres. Mr Haney will sell anything to anyone at any time. Two years ago, Cuomo was calling us a self-serving industry that cared nothing for children. Now he's our best bud, but that too will change with any way the wind blows.

Here's my problem with this program, successful though it is. The upside of Janus, and another reason I'm willing to run around and organize, is that we finally have leadership reaching out to us. This is a great organizing activity, involving a whole lot of us. Alas, if this is as successful as I think it will be, they may decide to sit atop 52 Broadway and continue to look down indifferently on rank and file issues, same as it ever was. That would be sad for a number of reasons.

First, leadership only noticed we were a union in anything more than name when Janus reared its ugly head. That's when they started to get people to knock on our doors, though they're a long way from reaching all of us. I'm not holding my breath for a UFT doorknocker here in Freeport NY. I'd argue that leadership was perfectly content with a membership in which three out of four of us can't be bothered voting in union elections. That way, it's Unity now, Unity tomorrow, and Unity forever.

Leadership is still tone deaf to working teachers. Yesterday I spoke with one who's been rated Highly Effective three years in a row. She's much-loved by her supervisor, and likely by everyone else. Yet she hates Danielson and she hates APPR. She is terrified by the observation process even though it's deemed her universally excellent. Not a single UFT official has been through Danielson, and not a single one knows what teachers feel.

When we go to Executive Board and say we should have the state minimum of two a year for teachers who do well that way, we're told teachers do better with more. I'll bet you, though, that when teachers are rated effective, almost all will say good enough for me and hang it up until the following year. When we say we need lower class sizes, we're told we made sacrifices fifty years ago and we're forming a group you aren't in, so sit down and shut up.

I'm very happy that UFT can continue being UFT. Leadership moved quickly and decisively to assure that dues money would continue coming in. Now I'd like to see that sort of alacrity applied to the issues working teachers grapple with each and every day.

Monday night I will certainly bring another one to their attention. And if they say, "We'll get back to you." I won't need a psychic to tell me just how seriously they take it.

Time for Democrats to Move on (and Maybe UFT Should Too)

A pair of columns about Democrats, one about what black voters lost by hitching their star to them, and another about the price Democrats paid for letting unions die, cried out to me. It's very much something that's been freaking me out, particularly since Trump took the White House. A lot of this began with Bill Clinton and his New Democrat nonsense.

Clinton was sorely wounded after his failed effort to nationalize health care. He stood strong and said that he was going to achieve it or strike down any alternative. ( popular joke at the time--What was the difference between Elvis and Bill Clinton? Elvis was alive.) While it was the right thing to do in many ways, his failure to achieve it meant he turned down something very similar to what became Obamacare, actually proposed by the GOP. Who knows where we might've been by now had that become law?

Clinton pivoted in the other direction, giving us the Republican Lite that failed to focus on helping the groups with whom Democrats were supposed to identify. When Obama ran, I was troubled by his educational positions. I had no idea he'd give GW Bush an extra term in education, and I had no notion he'd nationalize junk science to rate teachers. Nonetheless, he looked pretty reformy to me.

He ended up a lot worse than I'd expected. One thing that made me vote for him was his promise to enable card check. The possibility of enabling more union for working people seemed worth pursuing. Alas, he didn't bother. Obama also promised to find a pair of comfortable shoes and march with labor, but when Scott Walker shot labor in the back, Obama sat at his desk, presumably wearing heavy Oxfords that didn't encourage walking.

Hillary ran an uninspiring campaign, and the best thing people like me could say about her was, "Well, at least she isn't Donald Trump." Of course, because we don't actually run a national election, votes like mine in New York are relatively meaningless. While voting against Trump was a moral imperative, our fundamental lack of democracy left him President.

And this brings us to union leadership, which endorsed Obama despite his miserable record, and jumped at the starting gate to endorse Hillary. The idea was to be ahead of the curve. An early endorsement could, perhaps, strengthen your negotiating position. After all, AFT had endorsed Hillary against Obama, and that may have emboldened Obama to take all that reformy money and stab us in the back. Who knows?

So this time, the idea was to get with a winner way in the beginning. Or maybe it was about a preexisting preference for Hillary. I remember being part of an AFT phone call, supposedly to help pick a candidate. The first person to speak, supposedly from the crowd, was a hack for NY State Unity who ran an ad hominem blog on me. He called me a part time teacher and a part time unionist. Randi Weingarten tweeted it out and praised it, but retracted it when I pointed out his baseless attack applied not only to me, but also to every single working UFT chapter leader.

It looked to me like the Hillary endorsement was in the bag. I was not persuaded by talk of a "scientific survey" because there was no talk of how respondents were chosen and we were never shown the questions asked. It could have been a push poll, and one thing I'm certain of is no one I know actually took the survey. Also, I saw no evidence that AFT had made any demands of Hillary. Some people speculated that there was a job for Randi in a Hillary administration, but I don't believe that. I don't think Hillary would ever have risked the press reaction to a union leader as Education Secretary.

The main problem, though, was none of the above. The main problem, as we now know, was that Hillary was a loser. Why? Well, there's Russian interference. There are a whole lot of electoral irregularities, like the GOP crosscheck that actively discourages potential Democratic voters. But even after we acknowledge all that nonsense, there's the fact that Hillary failed to inspire voters to get off their asses and go to the polls. Had she managed that, she'd have won the Presidency just as Barack Obama had.

And why didn't Hillary inspire? Because she offered nothing other than more of the same. Universal health care? After having failed spectacularly to get that for Bill, she wasn't gonna try that again. Affordable college? She argued that we'd be financing Donald Trump's children, as though Trump would even dream of allowing his kids to go to SUNY or anyplace remotely similar. A living wage for all Americans? Hey, let's not get carried away. In fact, I don't recall her even bothering to pay the lip service to card check and/ or union that got me to vote for Barack Obama, once.

The point is that this corporate crap is not only unproductive, but also unappealing. Obama had enough charisma to overcome the stigma of some of his awful policies, but they hang in the air as having enabled Trump, and voters have had enough. We need to dump the "New Democrats" and find someone who supports working people.

And if UFT leadership can't find and support politicians with pro-labor, pro-teacher policies, they need to find someone who can, or make way for someone who can. We're in crisis and sleepy mediocrity simply won't cut it anymore.

My Friend's Door Gets a UFT Knock

I got a funny message today. My friend was home, doing home stuff, when she got a knock on her door. The person at the door knew her name and said he was from the UFT. She was pretty surprised by this. He said he wanted to talk to her about Janice. She said she didn't know who Janice was. Then he said no, it's Janus, not Janice, and it's a what not a who.

So she said she didn't know what Janus was. The guy said OK, and then he left. So I told her what Janus was. She thanked me, because she didn't know. I'm pretty sure that meant she hadn't been reading each and every letter of my staff emails, so I guess it was a good thing that guy knocked on her door. Except that he didn't tell her anything.

So really, what's the point? This guy, whoever he was, went for a weekend of training, and when somebody says she doesn't know what Janus is, he doesn't even bother to tell her. Is that why we're sending people out knocking on doors? Hardly seems worth it.

Actually, it's extra work for chapter leaders like me who are available to talk to members. What are people supposed to think when UFT reps knock on their doors, mention Janus, and then go off on their merry way? It appears to be a total waste of time.

Of course I'm just a lowly teacher. I didn't design the protocol. What do I know? If they think it's a good idea to knock on doors, mention Janus, then walk away when members don't know what it is, well, they should know. After all, I haven't even got an office, let alone the time to plan these clever informational sessions.

I wonder when they're gonna knock on my door. I don't know, but I have a strong feeling it's gonna be never. Has anyone knocked on your door yet? What happened?

The UFT Committee of 300

Someone told me yesterday that, as a member of the Executive Board, I am automatically on the Committee of 300, tasked with the negotiation of the UFT Contract. I'm torn between being honored, confused, or confounded.

It's nice to earn a place in such an important decision-making body. But then, I've been observing UFT leadership for around 12 years, and democracy is not their particular strong suit. It's great that they include opposition voices in something as fundamental as contract negotiations, but will they really listen? Do they even have to?

On the Executive Board I watch them vote in lockstep. The voice comes from on high, or more accurately from one of the microphones, and they instantly oppose dumping the evaluation system. It doesn't matter if they all supported dumping it at NYSUT. They instantly oppose reducing the minimum number of observations to 2, as per state law. They instantly oppose placing teeth in the class size regulations. After all, there's a committee, so all these violations must not even be happening.

It's nice to form committees, but it's no substitute for, you know, doing stuff. I'm not personally persuaded that the 300-member committee makes the decisions. Let's say, for example, that 200 of the 300 members are from Unity, and have all signed loyalty oaths. What are the chances the other 100 of us could persuade them? Let's say there are 250 of them and 50 of us. Let's give a more accurate estimate of 290 to 10. How do you think the vote's gonna go?

Let's say I'm on that committee with my fellow high school Exec. Board members, and leadership proposes More Work for Less Pay. The upside is we will win public support. People are sick of seeing prosperous schoolteachers riding around in their 89 Hondas, and once they see us working extra time for less money they will rally to our cause. Here's the thing--the media hates us and everything we stand for. They'll call it a cynical publicity stunt. Best case scenario--the Post will praise it for a week, then go back to vilifying us. That's what happened in 05.

And we'll argue precedent. But what difference will that make? The call will go out to support the More Work for Less Pay contract. If we don't sign it we'll have to get behind 160 other unions and wait. The cupboard is bare. There is no God-given right to More Work for Less Pay. If we don't accept this it could be terrible.

Meanwhile, we're sitting on the committee. We aren't allowed to reveal that we're discussing More Work for Less Pay. Then, when it comes out, they say, "We discussed this with the Committee of 300. We voted on it. The Committee contained members of the opposition and overwhelmingly favored More Work for Less Pay. After all, it's the best we could do. The mayor demanded even More Work for even Less Pay, but we stood firm. That's the kind of guys we turned out to be."

I'm not sure about the whole Committee thing. If I can't reveal what happened, and if I could be characterized as having supported the More Work for Less Pay Contract, it seems kind of pointless.  On the other hand, turning it down would be rejecting a chance to vote. I tend to vote every chance I get.

What would you do if you were me?

The Class Size Conundrum

Last year I brought a class size resolution to the UFT Executive Board. Of course they voted it down, because it's overkill. Of course the contract says there are 34 students per high school class, and 50 years ago they gave up something or other to have it enshrined in writing. That ought to be good enough for anyone.

The only issue, as far as I can see, is that the DOE has no respect whatsoever for the contract. There are oversized classes all over the city. UFT leadership seems not to perceive that as a flaw. After all, it says, right there in black and white, that we have limits. So what's the big deal?

Of course, there are exceptions. If you teach PE or music, you could have up to 50. And if you work in a school like mine you might have not five, but ten classes. You see, the geniuses in Albany have decreed that it's OK to give PE every other day. So there you are, with 500 students, and some AP demanding you differentiate instruction even though it's largely impossible for a standard human to even learn the students' names.

That's OK, isn't it? No? Well, it isn't really fair of me to imply that leadership is doing nothing about it. When I complained about it, they pointed out that they had started a committee, with the DOE, where they, you know, talk about stuff. And they made it a point to let me know that my school, which has been in violation of class size rules forever, was one of the schools they talk about.

What exactly they say I don't know. After all, I'm just a lowly chapter leader and member of the Executive Board representing city high schools. Why would they include me in discussions involving my high school? They're talking about it with someone, somewhere, and that should be good enough for me. But it isn't. Last year I placed an article in the Daily News about how some genius arbitrator had decided that relieving teachers of their C6 assignment one day a week was sufficient to compensate for class size issues.

Of course, now that there was a UFT committee sitting around talking about something, somewhere, with someone, everything would be completely different. In fact, for the second half of last year, the "action plan" entailed placing a licensed teacher in each oversized class to help the teacher and students out. This was not perfect, but made a lot of sense to me.

However, last month I went back, and what do you think the learned arbitrator suggested? He suggested that any teacher in our school with an oversized class would be relieved from the C6 assignment one day a week. That's absurd. Oversized classes are very tough to deal with. In fact, 34 is already the highest class size in the state. Going beyond that is unconscionable. We're moving backward rather than forward, and there are no viable consequences for violating the contract.

It's nice that a bunch of people from UFT and DOE are sitting around somewhere drinking coffee. But from the perspective of a chapter leader and class size advocate, it's clear to me that the committee has had no effect whatsoever on class size issues.

It's kind of remarkable that a city that claims to place children first, always, thinks that providing children with less tutoring will somehow make up for their utter disrespect for one thing we know to be effective--reasonable class sizes.

If APPR Is So Great, Why Do People Want Out?

Last week at Executive Board, UFT leadership told us that the APPR system was the best thing since sliced bread and that everyone loved it. The proof, they said, was that there were so few ineffective ratings this year.

This is kind of like the argument that the Open Market system is better than the UFT Transfer system, the one that got me out of John Adams before all the Adams teachers had to reapply for their jobs. (If I recall correctly, most didn't bother.) Because more people transfer, it's better. Too bad you're an ATR with no chance of ever getting a job again, but those are the breaks.

At my school, when we opened, a few teachers were a little upset. They each taught one class and then accompanied their students to various worksites. For the last few years they'd been rated via S and U, but this year they were told they were under Advance, Danielson, and all the wonderful baggage that accompanies it. Despite what leadership told us, they did not get up and do the happy dance.

In fact, they asked me if I could get them back on the old system. Now why would anyone do such a thing if the new one is so cool and fantastic? But they did. Last I heard, their request was sitting on a Very Important Desk at 52 Broadway, and they haven't gotten an answer back. So I don't know. Maybe they're right.

There have also been several people with .6 comp-time jobs asking me about this. My understanding is if 40% of your teaching day is spent, you know, teaching, that you fall under Advance. So if you teach 2 or more periods, there you are. This is what people at UFT tell me too. Of course, I can't blame people for trying.

There are some things that District Reps and UFT employees don't get. The first thing they don't get is that leadership can be wrong. There's a famous quote from Upton Sinclair:

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!

That applies here. The best way to get ahead in the UFT, as far as I can see, is to sign a loyalty oath and swear utter fealty to leadership. Various UFT employees have explained to me that the loyalty oath is not a loyalty oath, but if it barks like a loyalty oath, and quacks like a loyalty oath, it's a loyalty oath. Every time I go to the Executive Board or the DA and watch them vote as a bloc I'm reminded. They all love the observation system, each and every one of them, even if they hate it.

They do hate it, of course, if they actually teach. All teachers hate it. The administrators, unless they are frothing at the mouth vindictive psychopaths who get off on making teachers' lives miserable, all hate it too. It's pretty well worth hating. Imagine you have 40 teachers in your department and you have to observe each one 4 times. Then you have to write them all up and hold meetings for each one. I can't figure out how you do anything else.

We hate it because it's hanging over our heads each and every moment. When are they coming in? Will it be on a day when I'm actually talking with the students instead of doing some rubric heavy piece of incomprehensible degrees of knowledge stuff? Will the kid who never pays attention not pay attention? Will I look bad because it's 95 degrees outside and 105 degrees inside? 

Those questions sound ridiculous, but teachers know they're not. The problem is that people in leadership are not really teachers anymore. Some of them teach one class, but they aren't rated as we are. They're rated by--get this--S and U, the thing they say is so awful that no one could tolerate it. No one in leadership has ever been rated by Advance. None of them understand the stress that causes people to go to great lengths to get out of it. In fact, a member once told me that his supervisor threatened him--if he didn't get a .8 position instead of his .6 position, he was going to rate him ineffective. That member died weeks after having told me that. 

I think of him every time someone comes to me with one of these questions. Leadership doesn't. It's funny that, on a state level, they supported the end of APPR but won't do so for us. They say it doesn't work for the rest of the state. Here's a news flash--it doesn't work here either. Having a demoralized and terrorized teaching staff helps neither us nor our students. 

And doing nothing about it won't help UFT a whole hell of a lot come Janus either.

Boots on the Ground

I don't know whether anyone has noticed, but we are in crisis. The President of the United States came to our area yesterday afternoon and endorsed police brutality, while a bunch of police officers stood behind him and applauded. Then the Suffolk police force made a public declaration that they do not, in fact, support the policies they applauded, probably because some lawyer told them they'd be liable when the inevitable lawsuits appeared.

This was one day after Trump's people tried to take health insurance away from tens of millions of Americans so they could give a tax break to people who least need it. Here in NY, we have a bill that could enact single payer floating around in the ether, but going nowhere so far. I'm not sure where the IDC, the Republicans who pretend to be Democrats, who keep Democrats from controlling the Senate, stand on that. I'm not sure where Andrew Cuomo, key enabler of the IDC who now poses as Bernie Sanders, stands on that.

One thing I do know is that union in America is living on borrowed time. Scott Walker essentially killed it in Wisconsin, and that's the model Trump's stolen SCOTUS likely wants to emulate. Maybe the cops don't need to worry, because in Wisconsin they managed to keep their right to collectively bargain. After all, someone has to protect the state house when the bootless and unhorsed come out with torches and pitchforks.

It's great we participated in the Women's March. I've never seen anything like it. I marched with UFT in the Puerto Rican Day parade. It was great, but not broadly political, I showed for the Mayday event. It was pathetic, with maybe a few dozen of us out there, at least half from MORE/ New Action. I will be there for the Labor Day parade, and I invite you to join me. But it's far from enough.

As far as I can see, our response to the outrage that's occurring all over the nation is "Public School Proud." Now I'm Public School Proud. I don't need a campaign to know that. But I'd like to hear about this somewhere other than the UFT Delegate Assembly. Every day I read the papers, and learn of the perfidy of ATR teachers. They are terrible because they don't have regular positions. They are also terrible because they're going to be placed in regular positions.

The WSJ, the NY Post, and Campbell Brown are horrified by the ATR. Why can't they just crawl away and die? After all, Brown is not only a failed journalist and a self-appointed education expert, but she's also named after a soup can. Shouldn't that be credibility enough for anyone? Students First NY, funded by Gates, manages to get a group of a dozen parents to stand around and hold signs, and it's covered by every local paper.

We have tens of thousands of members. Why can't we get a few hundred people to stand somewhere for ATRs, for medical insurance for all, for union, for almost anything, and call a few reporters? Why can't we call them, let the press know of an angle, and get stories out there? It's been years since a large scale UFT action.

I am nobody, but when I became chapter leader, I got my school in every city paper and many local papers. I may do that again, because despite the city's agreement to give us space for our existing students, they've already started to overload us, thus welching on the agreement. It is beyond my comprehension why UFT leadership, with a paid staff and resources that dwarf mine, cannot manage to do what I did alone.

We need to activate membership now, or at least try. It will be a different game in a post-Janus world, and every moment we wait is a moment wasted.

NY Post Hates You and Everything You Stand For

Yesterday I noticed four pieces in the Post that were distinctly targeted at us. The first was a cheery little piece about how well NYC schools are funded. The second was about how test scores went up because exams were easier. The third was about a ruckus between a couple of top people at UFT. (Evidently Donald Trump is not the only person who has to worry about leaks these days.) Then, of course, there's the obligatory anti-ATR piece.

Before I say anything else, I have to add that I am a frequent fan of Post education writer Sue Edelman.  Sometimes I disagree with her columns, but she has a knack for finding and exposing crazy principals., Every time she exposes some principal wearing her fur coat while ignoring her job, or pushing all the teacher desks out on the street, I silently applaud.

Now I can't read the minds of the writers, so whatever I say here is guesswork. But when you compare New York City spending with that around the nation, I figure you ought to include cost of living. I mean, I'm not personally all that shocked that we spend 10% more than Syracuse, although it's presented as an outright scandal. Naturally, our salaries are also to blame. It turns out we have a very high salary compared to teachers elsewhere. Never mind that a whole lot of states pay teachers so poorly they run off in droves, or that we can't really keep them here either. And forget about the fact that teachers in our immediate surrounding area earn well more than we do, and have done so for at least the three decades I've been teaching.

As for test scores, I distinctly recall, when they went up under Bloomberg, the general conclusion in the press was that he was a genius, and his reforminess was working. Diane Ravitch was skeptical, noting that the NAEP scores did not parallel the gains. It took years before the NY Times caught up with Ravitch, and I doubt the Post ever did. (I stand corrected here, because Sue Edelman actually wrote several pieces about this.) Of course, with Bill de Blasio in office, there's no giving credit for test scores.

The fact is that the scores, the ones around which schools live or die, are nonsense. My students are rated by the NYSESLAT, which they took months ago, and which we scored months ago. Yet we have no idea how our students will be placed because they set the cut scores after students take the tests. Can you imagine what your principal would say if you pulled something like that? Sorry, Mr. Principal, but I can't give grades until I figure out how to pass exactly 81% of my students. Miss Grundy passed 80% and I need to do better. No wonder the state believes we're such crooks that we can't grade our own students. They think we must be as bad as they are.

The big scandal in UFT brass looks to be between Howie Schoor and Ellie Engler. I know them both from UFT Executive Board. The very first time I got up to speak there, Ellie Engler set up a meeting with the school construction authority. Because of that, my school will get an annex to address our rampant and chronic overcrowding, so I'm a fan. (Norm speculates Ellie was not a friend of Debbie Poulos, in which case Ellie's misjudged. Debbie is an aggressive and creative problem solver, and she's helped my members more than once. If I ran UFT, I'd have her cloned and send at least one Debbie to every borough office.) I know Howie only because he runs the meetings and regularly offers a range of cursory, off-the-cuff, to outright mystifying answers to my questions. It's nuts the Post goes so crazy over a typo in an email, but I really wonder who leaked it and why.

Yet leaks are problematic, says Post columnist Michael Goodwin:

Leaks, leaks, leaks are Exhibit A. Why they continue, and why nobody has been fired for bad-mouthing the president to the media, ­remain a mystery. Why does Trump put up with it?

 
You see the discrepancy here? Leaks in Trump's White House are bad, and there needs to be retribution. Leaks in the teachers' union need to be celebrated, and we need to do feature stories on them even if we barely understand what the hell they are about.

Naturally there is a piece about how the astroturf group StudentsFirstNY managed, with the bazillions they get from Gates, to assemble 20 parents to protest ATRs. It's always nice to see an organized group indulge in mindless stereotype, and it's not surprising that the Post manages to interpret this corporate-sponsored act of ignorance as "ripping deBlasio apart." That's so stupid I won't give it any more attention. And for my ATR friends wondering when UFT was gonna say something, here is Mulgrew's response. When Mulgrew wonders whether anyone will print UFT "rebuttals "about ATRs I wonder whether UFT has submitted op-eds for publication. If anyone can clue me in, the comments are open.

Now I know the Post's positions are probably not big news to any teacher who reads the papers. But I'm kind of tired of hearing how awful I am for drawing a salary. I teach the children of New York City and therefore perform a more valuable service than President Trump, who appears top devote himself to golfing, decimating union, getting tax cuts for himself and his BFFs, and taking away health insurance from tens of millions of Americans.

I'll sit while I wait for the Post to share my opinion.

I Go to a Seven-day PD so You Don't Have To

 I don't know how many times I've heard complaints about PD. For most of my career, at least, PD has consisted of some supervisor or other lecturing us, precisely what they tell us not to do when we teach. The kids shouldn't be late, because lateness is bad. If they're late, fail them and tell them you failed them because they were late. Now let's move on to the next topic of business--how can we pass absolutely everyone no matter what?

Another one of my favorite PD topics is The New Thing. This is the Thing. It is the only Thing. You must do this Thing and no other Thing. Yes I know we told you to do some different Thing last year, and at the time it was the only Thing, but forget about that Thing because it's garbage. This Thing is the Thing, and it's the only way to teach, so promise me you will do this Thing forever. Until next year when there is some new Thing.

This notwithstanding, I'm going on day five of being trained by AFT to give PD. You probably think I'm crazy (and I'm not maintaining otherwise). But a new state Thing is that teachers have to have CTLE hours in order to keep their licenses. After this training I will be able to offer people CTLE hours courtesy of the UF of T.  I actually signed up so I'd be able to offer hours to members in my school, but it appears they may be sending us to other schools as well. There are around 40 of us taking this course, so hopefully one of us will show up at a school near you.

I'm a breathing antiquity, walking around with three permanent certifications, so I don't personally need the hours. If you have a newer license, however, you will need to rack up 100 CTLE hours within the next four years. If you teach ESL, you need 50 ESL-related hours. If you don't, you still need 15 ESL-related hours, and those are the hours we will offer. This is the brainchild of UFT VP Evelyn de Jesus, and here in Right to Work Trumpmerica, it's a good idea. While I may have an issue or two with leadership here and there, actively helping people keep their licenses may underline the value of union. Every little bit helps.

I hate to admit it, but this PD is a little better than what I'm used to. I'm actually very focused on ESL (which someone decided is now ENL), what with it being my job and all. A whole lot of our students are with a whole lot of teachers who may or may not know who they are or what they need. I'm happy to help clear that up, I'm happy to help teachers get credit, and I'm happy to maybe get ELLs better services one way or another.

One thing I notice, continually, as we examine research about English Language Learners, is NY State's Part 154 goes completely contrary to everything we know. Research, as well as common sense, suggests that giving direct English instruction is better than not giving it. It suggests we should continue it until they attain advanced English language ability, rather than offering it year one and then saying, "The hell with it." It also suggests that when schools make English learning a priority, rather than treating it as a mandated nuisance, programs will be more effective.

The most fundamental thing I know about acquiring a language is that it takes time. Part 154 not only takes time away from English instruction, but also has the expectation that newcomers will magically acquire English while studying other subjects. So in the same time an American-born student studies the Magna Carta, the ELL is supposed to absorb not only that, but also basic English.

So I hope the all-knowing, all-seeing NY State Regents are reading this. Dumping kids into classes for which they are unprepared is counter-productive. It's not just that we're setting them up for failure--it's also that we're setting them up to hate our country and language as well. Unbeknownst to the geniuses in Albany, affect is a huge factor in how well humans learn language. We can either set them up to grasp it enthusiastically, or dump them in places they don't belong. NY State seems to favor the latter.

My job, as I see it, is to seduce children into loving English. No, really, I want them to look forward to my class as a place they can use our language and have fun with it. I don't always succeed, but that's always my goal. I'm fortunate enough to be certified in English as well as ESL, so I don't need to negotiate my lesson plan with a subject teacher who may be more focused on American-born students. The notion that learning English is somehow secondary to the goal of studying ELA, social studies, or indeed any academic subject, is preposterous beyond belief. 

We can do a whole lot better in NY State. I don't sit through 7-day PD 8 hours a day strictly for laughs. Maybe we can send this workshop to Albany and get the Regents to start doing things that are, you know, not insane.

Mayoral Control Is a Lose-Lose

I've opposed mayoral control since its inception, originally because it went to uber-reformy Michael Bloomberg. During his seemingly endless tenure, I learned more about it. I think Diane Ravitch wrote in Death and Life of the Great American School System that it was a reformy tool designed to bypass democracy. Unlike Bloomberg and Trump, I believe in democracy.

Now you'd think that having a professed charter foe like de Blasio in office might make mayoral control better. You'd be wrong because to Andrew Cuomo and the bought-off members of the Assembly and Senate, reforminess is almost like breathing. Because NYC has chosen a mayor who doesn't support the people who sent them suitcases full of cash, they passed a law that the city has to pay charter rent even if it disapproves of the actual charter.

It's fundamentally unfair that NYC has to shoulder the mandates of reformy suburban reps who wouldn't build charters in their own district on a bet. This notwithstanding, there was a barrage of pro-mayoral control talk recently, from self-appointed public education experts as diverse as Andrew Cuomo, Arne Duncan and Al Sharpton. The outcry led to a special session to push mayoral control and a two-year renewal. And we were told it was a clean deal, with no givebacks to the charter sector.

That sounded too good to be true, didn't it? Well it was, and NYC is now going to have 22 more charter schools. Reformy StudentsFirstNY is jumping up and down with giddiness, as are all the astroturf groups that represent the hedge funders who care so much about public education. Evidently these were charters that were granted but somehow did not make it as charters.

There's a lot of talk about charter quality, but the fact is they don't simply take a representative cross section of students. The fact is they don't hold on to the students they have, and they aren't burdened with the stats of the students they shed. The fact is all the students they don't finish with end up in public schools, and we are then vilified for their test scores. Even more importantly, the only stats the media regards as significant are test scores. There's something fundamentally wrong with a school that needs to keep extra clothing around for when kids pee their pants. If kids in your class peed their pants from fear, you'd be sitting in a rubber room somewhere, not making a half-million salary like Eva Moskowitz.

UFT's position is odd. As an organization we favor mayoral control, but not in its current form. Thus there was no UFT presence at some demonstration favoring it. On the other hand, there was no fervent opposition either. We just kind of stood on the sidelines. Thus, it appears that not only is the city getting another 22 charters, but it's also paying more money to charter operators. I don't suppose Moskowitz will have to wait eight years (like we did) before giving herself that hefty raise.

Here's the thing--charters are a Trojan Horse. They are designed to undermine and destroy us, and they hire people to move just in that direction. Jenny Sedelis works for StudentsFirstNY. I don't know what she does, but I know I've seen her name in many, many articles about reforminess. Moskowitz just won a lawsuit allowing her to take city money for preK while ignoring city rules about preK.

It seems to me that any school that wishes to take city money ought to be bound to follow city rules, including chancellor's regs. If I were to treat kids the way Eva does, I'd be in a rubber room. Someone who runs a chain of schools that treats kids like that ought to be in prison, meeting like-minded child abusers.

Summer Assignment--Wake the Sleeping Giant

Congratulations to all my colleagues who've earned a break today. We have a few months off, and we need it. So go take a trip. Or go to the beach. Or stay home and do whatever makes you happy. Lots of principals will say you do that to return refueled and recharged. In September they'll all say how excited they are to be back. Sometimes I believe them, but other times I don't.

But make no mistake, we are at war. Barack Obama and Arne Duncan degraded our profession by taking suitcases of money from reformies, and consequently pushing for teachers to be rated by junk science. They also insisted on the proliferation of charter schools, which are largely non-union workhouses for recent college grads (or not) who may put up with it a year or two. They paved the way for Trump and DeVos.

An issue with no union is you're on your own. This is a bad place to be when the supervisors and principals are thirty years old if you're lucky. If their main qualification is having hacked the miserable charter gig for a year longer than anyone else, it doesn't precisely speak to their leadership qualities.

There is absolutely no doubt that's the model Donald Trump, Betsy DeVos and the largely insane US Supreme Court wish to replicate. They've had it with all this career stuff. Pensions are outdated. Better to have a 401K, hope for the best, and find out what the most edible brand of cat food is for your golden years.

The only road ahead for us is paved with activism. I'm hoping to impress this on union leadership as well. So far, though, they're worried about offending people who like Donald Trump. The problem, though, is that people who like Donald Trump actually support this stuff. I don't know how, exactly. Last night I was at a retirement party talking to a retired teacher who supports Trump. He was telling me how wonderful retirement was, and how via this and that he actually brings in more money by not working than by working.

I pointed out that, whatever Fox News may have said on the subject, all of his heroes oppose his retirement. They oppose his health care. I'd argue they oppose his fundamental dignity, though we didn't get to that point. Oddly, he acknowledged all that, but didn't want to dwell on it. What he wanted to discuss was why I blocked him on Facebook.

I did that because, though I long tolerated and responded to his frequent use of ad hominem and strawman attacks on me and my beliefs, I found it beyond the pale when he used them on one of my Muslim colleagues. She's a mom who is fearful for her children since the advent of Trump. I understand that. I told Fox-following friend that she sent her kids to Muslim schools and worried for their safety. His wondered what they taught in those places. I wondered what they taught in all religious schools.

He says not all Trump supporters are racists. I'm sure that's true, though I'd argue that anyone who supported Orange Man is more tolerant of racism and bigotry than I am. I'd also argue, though, that all or most racists are Trump supporters, and that this is not remotely coincidental.

I'd say the hatred toward ethnic groups is one and the same with hatred toward union and good jobs.

We need to oppose all of it. We need to do so publicly and vocally. We need to wake up the sleeping giant that is our membership. Public School Proud is nice, but not remotely enough. If you don't think we're in crisis, you aren't paying attention.

A friend of mine says there are only two problems with the UFT--the membership and the leadership. Our challenge now is awakening and activating both, and we've got our work cut out for us.

Getting the Song and Dance at the UFT Pension Consult

I’ve been getting feedback of late about end-year pension consults.  I can’t do much about it, not only because have I nothing to do with them, but also because I'm far from an expert on pension. Numbers are not really my forte. But three people who attended a UFT  pension workshop together just reported about their consultations, and all three seemed to wonder over different things. One had a particularly tough experience.

My friend couldn’t get an appointment at UFT Queens for a retirement consult, so she went to Manhattan. She found a coupon, paid $35 for parking and a little more for a roundtrip EZ pass fee. When she got to her destination, the UFT rep went on the computer, and it took her at least five minutes to figure out what my friend would make if she retired in 2020. That’s unusual, since it’s an average, and then a multiple of 2% per year. I don’t like to brag, but I'm a high school graduate and could have figured that pretty quickly.

She then asked how much she’d make if she were to retire now. The woman took another five minutes, and then came up with a figure that clashed with the one my friend had calculated at the UFT retirement workshop. My friend, as instructed, asked the UFT employee to check her W2s. The pension person requested her 2017 returns. This is unusual, as few people I know do their tax returns before the year actually ends. (Maybe Donald Trump, but everyone knows rules don't apply to kings.)

It then took the woman another five minutes to flip through the returns and determine that 2017 was not, in fact, a year for which my friend would have one. Instead of looking through five years of returns, as my friend was asked in a letter, the rep looked only at the 2016 returns and came up with a figure that way. This was problematic because my friend could have made more money other years. In fact, my friend says 2013, 14, and 15 were her best years.

When my friend asked about medical expenses, the woman told her they would be exactly the same. This is unusual, because retirees no longer get prescriptions via UFT Welfare Fund. They to tend to, therefore, incur higher costs. Perhaps the UFT employee didn’t know that. Oddly, I do.

My friend then told the rep that she had gone for a workshop at Queens UFT, attended by 150 people, and that the information she was giving contradicted what she had heard at the workshop. The rep contended the information at the workshop was incorrect. My friend then asked if there was any more information she could give, and the rep said no. The rep claimed said she was correct, and that someone in Queens told 150 people the wrong thing.

My friend then stood up, and said, “Thank you. This consultation is now over.” The rep said, “Look at you. You’re standing up. You have an attitude.” My friend then went outside. The rep followed her and gave her version of the meeting to everyone who happened to be in the waiting room, making certain all present knew about my friend's attitude.

My friend asked the rep to please stop announcing the results of this meeting to everyone in the room, and requested a supervisor. Eventually she got a name. At the appointed floor, someone came out and said a person, not the supervisor, was expecting her. The rep had evidently given her a heads-up. My friend got to give her version of the story to this person. The person apologized for the inconvenience and offered a consultation with someone she described as the top person. My friend asked if they would cover her parking the next time and was told they don't do that.

I'm sorry she has to go again. But I don't blame her for having an attitude. Everyone has an attitude. The best thing to do, as far as I'm concerned, is to adjust it to suit the situation. 

A to Z on CR Part 154 and ESL

A few days ago I attended a meeting at UFT central regarding Part 154. This is the relatively newly revised regulation for ESL students that governs their learning conditions. Honestly, other than a little extra instruction for kids who test out of ESL, I see nothing good about it at all. I'm going to share here what I told a committee looking at it, and what most ESL teachers I know would like to see addressed.

Part 154 demands that we teach ELLs academic subjects plus English in the same time it takes native English speakers to master academic subjects alone. This is absurd beyond belief. If someone is teaching about the Battle of Gettysburg, and it takes 40 minutes to address it, how on earth are newcomers supposed to learn not only that, but also the vocabulary and nuances required by a new language?

It also reduces and diminishes direct English instruction, vital to the kids I serve. After puberty, language acquisition ability declines precipitously. My kids, like all high school ELLs in the state, are losing 33-100% of direct English instruction. The notion that this lost time will be blended in with magical academic classes is misguided, and that's being generous.

Part 154 makes changes that may be well-intentioned, but we all know what the road to hell is paved with. Intentions notwithstanding, it place learners in classrooms studying inappropriate materials. Newcomers could easily be expected to read To Kill a Mockingbird, or Hamlet, for example, and this could easily be in lieu of learning how to introduce themselves. Nonsensical situations like these will certainly discourage students. These learners could easily become altogether alienated with both our language and culture.

Were it up to me, I'd place newcomers, particularly older ones, in an intense English immersion program. Ambitious though it is to hand them three-inch thick biology textbooks, such practices deprive children of the instruction they need to more quickly manage not only their everyday lives, but also to aid in those of their parents and other family members. ELLs sometimes miss school because they have to accompany their parents or grandparents to the doctor, or to immigration, or just about anywhere else, to act as translators.

Widely accepted theories of language acquisition and encouraging reading suggest our practices are misguided, and becoming even moreso. The use of high interest materials, at or just a little above student levels, is the sort of thing that might seduce kids into loving reading, or even English. You can frown on comic books, but if kids love them they can learn from them.

The notion of combining our subject with others degrades our discipline, suggesting the English language is somehow secondary to academic subjects. Actually it’s more fundamental, more important, and indispensable to anyone who wishes to master any academic subject. You don't run before you can walk, but the NY State Board of Regents seems not to know this.

Part 154 reduces devoted ESL teachers to secondary figures in classrooms. In many cases it makes them redundant. As principals seek out dual-licensed teachers to save money, dedicated ESL teachers will be out of work. Much as I deplore that situation, it's actually far from the worst part of it. It’s ridiculous and offensive to imagine that someone who takes the magical 12 credits to become dually-certified could do even what we do, let alone teach the Magna Carta and basic English at the same time.

There's an absurd rule that says students in ESL classes may not be more than one grade apart. This makes scheduling impossible even in an extremely large school like mine. If we were to follow the regs that say students may not be more than one grade apart, I’d have one class of 3 and one of 65. Schools with smaller populations have even more difficulty.

In fact, in small schools with one ESL teacher, said teacher is expected to do and teach everything. Go help everyone teach everything. No more frittering your time away teaching these kids English. Go to the science class, the math class, the social studies class, and the English class, and make sure every kid who doesn't understand English gets an A on every test. Also, make sure they get excellent scores on 4-8 math and English. And make sure they get 90 or higher on all the Regents exams.

This is discouraging, to say the least, to potential ESL teachers. A great young teacher in my building, one who first joined my classes as a student observer, is contemplating a career change. I see a lot of discussion as to whether or not young people to be teachers. I love being a teacher, and I particularly love being an ESL teacher. I have often told student teachers it's the very best thing to teach.

But if our role is to stand around with teachers of tested academic subjects and explain what they're trying to do to people who don't understand English, I can't recommend it. It takes a lot to discourage someone like me, but Part 154 does a pretty good job.

Will NYSUT and UFT Leadership Endorse King Andrew?

It's good that NY will help students pay for school. It's certainly an improvement over students not being able to afford school. Personally, though, I don't trust Andrew Cuomo as far as I can throw him. I understand that he's not being openly hostile to teachers at the moment. Despite that, this is a man without convictions, a man with no moral center, a man who puts his finger up to the wind and goes whichever way blows toward the Presidency.

Andrew Cuomo, having watched the results of the 2016 Presidential election, has decided the way to go is becoming Bernie Sanders Lite. And lite he is, given that he ran for the Governorship on a platform of going after unions. He's taken all sorts of money from charter school enthusiasts, and had no problem speaking at one of the Moskowitz Academy rallies. He's imposed junk science ratings on every teacher in New York. He's introduced Tier 6 to government employees. He's imposed a tax cap that means municipalities can't raise their school budgets by more than 2% without a super majority, and bribes residents with a tax refund for failing to invest in their schools. He's also failed to comply with the CFE ruling to give sufficient funds to city schools.

Nonetheless, that's not what he wishes to be known for. Right now, he wants to make tuition free for a lot of students, and I believe he actually stood with Sanders somewhere. Of course, it's not precisely a free ride. You have to be in school full time and complete it within a prescribed time frame. And you have to live in New York for as long as you receive the scholarship. Cuomo has now relaxed those rules a little. If you're in the military, or if you face extreme hardship, you get a break. Of course, if you do have to pay the money back, it's interest free. That's a better deal than I got.

All in all it's a definite improvement. It will help a lot of kids who I serve. So you take this, along with the "moratorium" that Cuomo's imposed on certain 4-8 state tests, and you could conclude that he's a new man. Of course, you'd need to disregard Tier 6, APPR, CFE, the budgets, and the state reg that NYC has to pay rent for charters whether or not it approves them. You'd have to assume he isn't still bought and paid for by "Families for Excellent Schools" and all the various astroturf orgs that hate us and everything we stand for.

I'm afraid I can't make that assumption. What really bothers me is that UFT and NYSUT leadership will perhaps make it anyway and endorse him next election cycle. I think that would be a mistake. Just because a self-important, self-serving, disingenuous, morally bankrupt politician makes a few moves toward evident lucidity doesn't mean that he's changed.

Even before Cuomo started pretending not to hate us, we kind of gave in to him. Who can forget our failure to support Zephyr Teachout in the Working Families Primary? Who can forget our failure to support her in the Democratic Primary? And who can forget our failure to oppose Cuomo in the general? I was not a fan of his GOP opponent, who had pretty words for us but opposed the Triborough Amendment that kept our contracts in force after they expired. I did, however, vote for Green Howie Hawkins both times Cuomo ran.

All in all, the man is a loathsome reptile. He will turn on us at any moment he deems convenient. It would be an enormous mistake for us to ignore that. 

Where Credit Is Due--UFT Paperwork Committee

From time to time, I may be mildly critical of UFT leadership. I mean, there may be one or two things here and there with which I do not concur. But this notwithstanding, I have to admit when they do something right, they do something right. At some point or other, Mulgrew told the DA that the biggest problem teachers had was paperwork. I didn't agree with that. I'd say the biggest problem is the evaluation system, which is totally off the wall. But he pointed to successes with the paperwork complaints, and I now have some firsthand experience I'll share.

Earlier this year, some DOE genius put out a memo about participation. It differentiated between ways of measurement. For example, one teacher judged it based on her memory, and that was a no-no. After all, how can you rely on the memory of some teacher? You don't actually expect anyone to have fundamental respect for the judgment of a teacher, do you? Instead, it gave the example that Johnie brings his pencil and notebook each and every day. Now that is participation, because you can quantify it, and to some DOE genius, that indicates student effort.

In our school, there were meetings and discussions. How do you measure participation? Some teachers said they placed check marks whenever someone spoke. Others spoke of two-point rubrics. The default, they said, was everyone gets two points each day. It's easy because you only take a point off if they don't do something or other. I could not envision recording each and every student each and every day on this scale or any other. On the one hand, I absolutely could rate every action of every student. I know this because I often go to meetings and take copious notes. Alternatively, I could teach. But I could not do both.

I was extremely surprised when teachers who never, ever complain about anything whatsoever came up to me and said that this mandate was impossible. I mean these were straight arrow types who would rather eat a live toad than file a grievance. So I asked a friend at UFT whether this merited a paperwork complaint and got a very spirited hell yes in response. This complaint made its way to Contract Enforcement head Debbie Poulos, who mentioned it in passing to some DOE bigshot. Said bigshot demanded to know which school it was, and what do you know, the bigshot agreed it was ridiculous to demand documentation for participation. This makes me suspect the DOE may have hired an ex-teacher or two somewhere or other, but who knows?

Another thing that has bothered me ever since I became chapter leader was the fact that teachers who took six classes were required to also do a C6 assignment. OK, well it didn't bother me that much, because sixth classes have been available to ESL teachers for years and I've never pursued one. But there was one special education teacher in particular who had these classes and never seemed to be able to keep up. UFT told me Article 7O says that you take these classes in lieu of a prep. I looked it up, and there it was. So I figured, well, you take the sixth class, and that's what happens.

But last October I had a conversation with James Eterno, and he instructed me to actually look up Special Circular 6R and read it. And who would've thunk it, it said right there in black letter that anyone who took that sixth class didn't have to do a building assignment. So I ran around and found a senior teacher with six classes to file a grievance. For reasons that escape me, it took four months for Queens UFT to take this to step two. For more reasons that escape me, by that time the member didn't want to go through with it anymore. I couldn't file the grievance myself because I didn't have six classes. Also, I didn't have another four months in the school year.

Now in our school, we break up the C6 assignment. We do the C6 for three days, we do one day of Other Professional Work, and we give one day toward the infamous teacher teams. The teacher teams entail paperwork, so at UFT"s request, I went and filed another paperwork complaint saying they ought not to do it since Circular 6 says they get a prep back. This one was done by the book, and went local before it went central.

Wednesday night my DR informed me that UFT won this complaint. I asked him if I could get a big bass drum and walk up and down the street beating it while screaming at the top of my lungs. He said yes I could, but I needed to wait until I got a call from Debbie Poulos first. Well, that call came shortly afterward. Alas I could not locate a bass drum. But I took my dog Julio into the back yard, where he had a barking contest with the dog next door. Next best thing, I guess.

Barking contest was pretty close. I can't say exactly who won.

Mayday, Mayday

In order to Make America Great Again, our good pal Donald Trump wants to cut hundreds of millions of dollars used to hire teachers and keep class sizes down. You can write Congress today to ask them to fight that, and please do. Still, that's just one fight of many. Because the President is so virulently anti-union and anit-public education, he made it a point to nominate a Supreme Court justice who would vote to, among other things, leave us with less money and less power. So now we're facing an almost certain "Right to Work" nation.

This essentially means everyone will be able to enjoy the benefits of union, like representation in and out of building, like collective bargaining (unless SCOTUS makes that illegal as well), and everything else we do, but only some of us will pay. That's what Trump calls freedom. Ironically, though I don't support most of what Donald Trump does, I'll still have to pay income tax.

On Monday, I went to a May Day demonstration in favor of immigrants. It was a little odd for me, because I think of May Day as a day to celebrate labor and our achievements. In some European countries it's a national holiday. The UFT sent something out in the chapter leader weekly. I had a really hard time finding UFT, but after a while I saw George Altomare, Mel Aaronson, and a handful of others standing on a corner. Later, there may have been 15 or 20 people from UFT Central. There were also 15 or 20 people from MORE and New Action. That's odd because in general we are outnumbered. It says something about our collective values.

Other unions took it more seriously. I saw DC37 all over the place, issuing green hats and posters. Other unions had a lot of posters and things to identify themselves. It was nice that UFT had a banner, but it would have been a whole lot nicer if they'd tried harder to mobilize people.

Bill de Blasio spoke strongly in favor of immigrants. At one time I thought he was going to be a one-termer, but now that he's running against Donald Trump it looks like he's a sure thing. He hasn't got a really serious opponent, and some, like Tony Avella and Bo Dietl, look like circus clowns. In Nassau County, where I live, it looks like Laura Curran will be the next county executive. Even though she's running against an opponent who appears hopelessly smeared by corruption charges, she's chosen to run against Trump as well.

Trump, of course, took a moment from his weekly taxpayer-funded golf vacations to declare May Day "Loyalty Day." I suppose he wants us to support his concerted effort to, and let's say it correctly this time, Make America White Again. It's remarkable that, on a day we're supposed to celebrate labor's victories, he'd have us celebrating loyalty to his bigoted and repulsive policies.

This is a fight that needs to go on. If the thugs from ICE show up at my classroom door, they'll have to drag me away before they get their paws on my kids. Because of UFT and others making the egregious error of endorsing awful candidate Hillary Clinton, perhaps the only Democrat who could manage to lose to a dog like Donald Trump, we're stuck with an anti-labor SCOTUS for years to come. We're stuck with further erosion of rights for voters and working people.

May Day is a time to take a stand for democracy. Every day is May Day now.

The NYC Investigator

Yesterday I was visited by some charming representatives from the City of New York. They were doing an investigation, and I got called out of one of my classes. A member was sitting there. It was not very difficult to know what to say.

"Please give us your card. The member will be happy to speak with you as soon as we have representation."

I've been chapter leader for eight years now. I was trained to say this, I tell all my members to say the same thing, and that's the protocol. In the last eight years, I know of only one member who failed to follow this advice. He was fired. I'm not saying that wouldn't have happened anyway, but I'm absolutely certain it didn't help.

Every time I've given the card speech, the  rep has handed the card, and the member was represented. One of these guys was different, though. He was indignant.

"Do you know what this is about?" he asked.

"No, I don't."

"Do you care what this is about?"

"No, I don't."

Whatever it's about, the protocol is the same. The investigators from are not our friends. I've seen them drag people through the mud for no reason.  They might say you aren't the target and target you anyway. But this guy, he had an answer.

"YOU don't care about CHILDREN! All YOU care about is protecting TEACHERS!"

There was some back and forth and I told him that was a strawman.

"YOU don't know what a strawman IS!" declared the investigating genius.

In fact I know very well what a strawman is. A strawman is a logical fallacy. It's when you fabricate or misrepresent your opponent's argument in such a way to make it look ridiculous or impossible to defend. It's when you tell your opponent what he thinks. Actually, though, this was also an attempt to rattle me. And it worked. I was pretty angry. I work for children every day of my life. I will not hesitate to go to jail for them if guys like this one come into my classroom. 

I went outside with the member, who told me what the issue was. We then went back inside. I decided to make him mad this time.

"We've discussed the issue. NOW I know what we're talking about. Please give us your card and the member will call you as soon as we have representation."

The DOE guy got visibly upset, screaming more about how I don't care about children. Evidently, if I cared about children I would advise my members to give up their rights to due process. I would tell them to submit to the lies and manipulation of guys like these without question. Then the kids, the ones this guy cares about and I don't, could grow up into a world in which they unquestioningly submit to guys like this one.

I asked the guy if he fancied himself the Amazing Kreskin, what with his reading my mind and all. I told him I'd be filing a complaint about him. I don't much appreciate being slandered and vilified for doing my job. He then turned to the member, and shouted, "Well, if you won't talk now, we're not coming back here. You'll have to come to Manhattan, or maybe Brooklyn." Threats and intimidation designed to make the member give up due process.

You know what? Everyone should get due process. Accused murderers get lawyers. Whatever happened, my member needs to be protected. If my member isn't protected, the children this man supposedly cares for won't be either.

Later that afternoon I called 311 to file a complaint. After much conversation they told me they were switching me over to DOE, and that I could file the complaint anonymously. I told them I didn't want to be anonymous and they said that was OK too. I told them if it was DOE I'd like to do this through UFT instead, so I hung up and reached out to someone there. I figure a complaint from the United Federation of Teachers will carry more weight than it will from just me.

But if they don't do it, I'll do it myself. Whatever happened in this case will come out, and the city is simply going to have to follow procedures to make that happen. Their bullying and intimidation tactics change nothing. I guess, though, that they work sometimes, maybe often, and that's why we need to answer them.

The only thing I regret is that I lost my temper as well. Clearly that was this guy's intention. That won't happen again. When kids do that to me, I'm ready. I respond to provocation with complete calm, offer gentle reproaches, and think about what I'll do next. That's what I'll do the next time this or any other city rep tries to intimidate me.

Correction--I'm now told that this agency is not part of DOE, despite what 311 told me. I've revised the piece to reflect this.

Hell Freezes Over

Photo notwithstanding, this isn't about the Eagles. I'm just sitting here pretty much in shock that anyone from UFT would recruit me to do anything whatsoever. But it just happened nonetheless.

It's been a very interesting but bumpy ride for me on this blog. I started in 2005, with a view toward defending the UFT against the slings and arrows of the press, which seemed to hate us and everything we ever did. I had written a few times for New York Teacher, and they were the first people who ever paid me to write.  That said, I had personally taken exception to the 2002 Contract for adding time. Given that we had recently taken zero percent increases, I saw further such increases as a way to wipe out any gains and effectively leave us working extra time for free.

Shortly thereafter the 2005 Contract showed up. I had been in negotiations to write for Edwize, the gone but not-much-lamented UFT blog. I found the 2005 Contract to be a virtual abomination, and stating that publicly marked the end of my Edwize career before it even began. So I stayed here, and developed a voice that may have criticized union leadership once or twice, here and there.

I've run for office a few times, and last year, with the support of the MORE Caucus and the high school voters, managed to win a seat on the UFT Executive Board. We go there twice a month and support almost everything Unity brings up. Unity, which outnumbers us by over ten to one, opposes almost everything we bring up. It's a pretty funny position to be in, but you never know when they'll come to their senses.

I've been on an up and down quest to help reform the awful ELL policy called Part 154, and have not had a whole lot of success getting the kind of attention it deserves. I had a journalist all set to write about it, but for whatever reason, we had a lot of back and forth and it never happened. My friend Aixa and I made it all the way to being on TV, but haven't been able to get sustained attention thus far. I was able to help initiate and push a resolution with UFT to reform it, but nothing much has happened since then.

While I was pretty happy about it, I also almost fell off my chair when UFT VP of Education Evelyn de Jesus invited me to the NY State Association for Bilingual Education Conference in White Plains last weekend. I had signed up to do work with a UFT ESL committee, but didn't expect anything to come of it. I spent three days with people who were passionate about the kids I see every day. It was pretty amazing. Evelyn also spoke to me about presenting on future occasions, which surprised me even more. In fact, Regents Chancellor Betty Rosa, who I've been trying in vain to reach out to, actually walked up to me after she spoke and said told me was working on Part 154.

I'm more than happy to work with my union to promote our shared values and help the kids we serve. Fun though it may be fight all the time, this might be a better way to go. It's something I've been urging on this space for some time. We are fighting the worst dangers I've ever seen. Betsy DeVos and Donald Trump would be happy to close every public school in the country, make a few bucks on privatization, and maybe bring back child labor It appears inevitable that the United States will move backward to become a so-called right to work country. And if that isn't enough, my students, from every corner of the globe, are facing fears and dangers worse than I ever thought they'd have to encounter.

So I want to thank Evelyn de Jesus for thinking of me for this. I'm ready to work with UFT to preserve and protect the rights of my students. I'll do whatever I can. If we can give them a better and/ or safer education, I'm up for it. UFT President Michael Mulgrew said, at the conference, that if they came to our schools we're ready to be arrested. I know I am. These kids are like my own children and they've been one of the best parts of my life.

I'm ready to stand for them, to defend them, and to fight for them. I'm thrilled to see UFT leadership feeling the same way, and they have my unqualified support in this.

Slippery Talk from Constitutional Convention Advocate

On Saturday I got a message from one of my members about this op-ed in the NY Daily News. It categorizes those of us who oppose it as purveyors of "alternative facts." That's the phrase that Trump stooge Kellyanne Conway used to rationalize outright lies on the part of the President, and it's got a useful ring when you wish to ridicule ideas. The writer ridicules Flanagan for overestimating the costs of a convention, offering no sources, so who knows whether or not that's true?

Personally, I doubt it, because the writer then launches into alternative facts of his own:

Another scare tactic being used to oppose the convention, this time by public employee unions that worry about threats to their entrenched clout, is the claim that a convention could vote to reduce their pensions. The protection for public employee pensions in the state Constitution cannot be eliminated without violating the contract clause of the federal Constitution, which bars states from rescinding contract rights.

Okay, let's grant this writer the possibility that the US Constitution says that. Personally I'm skeptical. If contract rights were so ironclad, how could Detroit have imposed one? And why would we need the Triborough Agreement? Perhaps the writer is correct, and contract rights are ironclad up until they expire. Of course, that doesn't explain how, in times of fiscal emergency, contracts are not necessarily enforced. I've been to many UFT meetings and I've heard about what happens in times of emergency. But let's grant the writer's supposition.

So our pensions are ironclad, given his statement, right up until our contracts expire. Then you're on your own. That doesn't sound so great, does it? Could it be that UFT pensions are only guaranteed until 2018, when our contract expires? Could it be that we're saved because of the Triborough Amendment?

The answer is none of the above, actually. Our pensions are not part of our contract, so whatever the US Constitution may say on the subject, the writer's point is nonsense. Someone is trafficking in alternative facts here, but it isn't the working people of New York State, it isn't the United Federation of Teachers, and it isn't those of us who've worked all our lives under the expectation that the pensions we signed up for would be honored when we retired.

I have my differences with UFT leadership, and I may in fact have mentioned them once or twice on this little blog. But misleading nonsense like this op-ed are just the opening salvo in what will be a long-term attack against the financial security for which we've worked all our working lives. This targets all UFT members and all state employees, whether new, veteran, or retired.

A few weeks ago, I conducted my first and only COPE drive. I recruited 78 members, 79 if you count the one who came to me weeks earlier complaining about the Constitutional Convention. And I may invite UFT in for lunch meetings to recruit further.. I don't expect to support everything that COPE does.

Nonetheless, I don't know of any other organization right now that's going to fight this. Whatever happens with this Constitutional Convention, I'm not gonna say that I didn't do everything within my power to fight it. I've contributed five bucks a paycheck for a number of years, largely because I thought it made me a little more credible as chapter leader. But I didn't ask my members to join me until this year. We need not look far to see what happens when pension promises aren't kept.

We face all kinds of threats, all the time. Sometimes the union is helpful and sometimes it isn't. But as a teacher, I'm all in. If you are, or if you think you ever will be, it's hard for me to understand how you could decline to fight this with every means at your disposal. Come November, if we win, it may be time to reassess this decision. But right now I don't regret it at all.

Update--I wrote the following as a letter to the editor:

I read with interest your op-ed advocating a Constitutional Convention in NY. The writer focuses on “alternative fact” and asserts that pensions will not be renegotiated because they are protected by contract and the US Constitution, UFT pensions are not, in fact, part of our contract. I’d have to assume, since pensions are an independent agreement with the state, that they are not part of other union contracts either. Therefore the writer’s assertion that unions oppose the Constitutional Convention to maintain “entrenched clout” is baseless. The writer either did extremely shoddy research or is himself a purveyor of alternative fact.

Arthur Goldstein, ESL teacher/ UFT Chapter Leader
Francis Lewis High School, Fresh Meadows NY

DA Takeaway January 2017

This month's DA was notable for several reasons. One is the positive campaign Mulgrew intends to run. It's a great idea, but I'm skeptical because it's only words. I regularly approach the Executive Board with the argument that it is us who represent New York City's children, and it is us who should stand for them. They roll their eyes. Last month they rejected a class size resolution that certainly had input from public school parents. They did this on the basis of our having sacrificed to place class sizes in the contract.

That's an absurd assertion, since it happened 50 years ago, and we still haven't shut the holes in it, which are so large you can drive a Mac truck through them. Maybe we'll get that the "plans of action" cannot be used indefinitely, and maybe the new negotiation process will help a little, but the ultimate decision is with the arbitrators. For my money, they don't give a crap about the real issues of class size and until they do, there's no evidence UFT does either.

As to the DA itself, it was remarkable that James Eterno could be treated with such contempt by leadership. James stood and asked that we work toward a minimum of two rather than four observations, and also mentioned that many state locals work under that understanding. He cited discontent among rank and file with the number, and my experience suggests that he's dead on. He also cited the fact that his wife Camille is currently being railroaded over at Humanities and the Arts Magnet High School. He concluded by asking that the person who speak against his suggestion be someone who is actually rated by the system.

UFT Secretary Howard Schoor got up and angrily told James he doesn't get to pick who speaks against his motion. Schoor, who is not rated by Danielson, who has never been rated by Danielson, and who will almost certainly never be rated by Danielson then proceeded to signal the Unity Loyalty Oath Signers that they were to vote this proposal down. Of course he couldn't just do that; he had to also give an argument.

Here's the argument--There are fewer people rated ineffective now than were rated unsatisfactory under the previous system. Here's what's wrong with that argument. For one thing, it treats those rated developing as though they were rated satisfactory. As someone who's spent a lot of time meeting with, representing, and counseling people rated developing, I can say with 100% certainty that's not how they feel. Sure they don't face the consequences of an ineffective, but that's cold comfort for them.

Another problem with that argument is, as always, leadership conveniently forgets that two ineffectives means the burden of proof is on the teacher at 3020a. That's a hell of a mountain to climb, and no one had to do it before the advent of this system. But the very worst problem with Schoor's argument is this--No matter how few people are rated ineffective, there is no argument whatsoever you can possibly make that will make a single one of them feel better. I do not tell people who are rated ineffective, "Well, it happened to far fewer people so you might as well feel good about it." That would be, and is, idiotic. Remember that Schoor made this statement directly to James, whose wife, again, is currently facing these ratings and being raked over the coals by Danielson.

But the overarching problem with the argument is that making it at all underlines just how out of touch leadership is with membership. It's amazing that people who are not even touched by Danielson can muster the audacity to lecture those of us who are. And this imperious and preposterous attitude bodes ill for the next coming of Friedrichs.

And despite all this, that was not the most striking thing I heard at the DA. The most amazing thing I heard was the statement by Michael Mulgrew that UFT asked for two observations. This shocked me for several reasons. One is that I've been to chapter leader training and the Executive Board, and I've heard about the new system from the best experts the UFT had to offer. The argument I heard, not once but several times, was that more observations give teachers a better chance of doing well. I also heard that CSA, the principals' union, wanted fewer observations.

Now if UFT had asked for two and was rebuffed in negotiations by the DOE, why the hell didn't they just say so? And why on earth would anyone give James Eterno a nasty answer to a very real problem when they could've just said, "You know, we wanted that too, but we couldn't get the DOE to agree to it." If that's the truth, it's a hell of a better argument than any I heard, and I've heard the arguments on at least three occasions, including the DA.

So what's the truth? Is Mulgrew telling it? And if so, why don't all of them tell it? Why haven't they told us before? Have they been lying to us to make us think that they controlled negotiations better than they did? If so, doesn't that suggest that's what they do as a matter of course?

With leadership like that, is it any wonder we're facing DeVos, ready to dismantle public education but ever vigilant about protecting us from grizzly bears? It's amazing that we had to listen to Mulgrew talk so much about transparency, and that leadership nonetheless sits up there on that 14th floor posturing as though they're on Mount Olympus, talking down to all us non-deities below.