Breaking--

I have it on good authority that, after a mere 12 years, Chalkbeat has spoken to an ATR teacher.

Super-Reformy Chalkbeat Gives Both Reformy Sides

Naturally, I'm impressed that Chalkbeat went the extra mile, quoting not only Eva Moskowitz, but also the so-called Families for Excellent Schools, an astroturf org whose primary function appears to be supporting Moskowitz. Sometimes it's not enough to only get Eva's side, and it's important to also know how her professional cheering section feels. (In case you're wondering, they support her.) That way, we get a more thorough understanding of the pro-charter side of the issue.

What might you lose when you go out of your way to focus on both reformy sides? A commenter at Chalkbeat offers a taste:

This Chalkbeat article left out the information that Mayor de Blasio offered space to some of these charter schools and the charter schools rejected it because it was not in the expensive neighborhood where it would be much easier to market to the affluent students they prefer to teach.

Odd how the ace reporters at Gates-Walmart funded Chalkbeat forgot that part. Essentially, the story says that charters wish de Blasio to show his good will by giving up and surrendering space. Given the comment, I guess it can't just be any space. After all, Eva needs to be particular. And she can't really complete her rampant expansion plans without  precisely the right space for her private schools that can't be bothered following city regulations. So why shouldn't the taxpayers foot the bill so she can go wherever she goshdarn pleases? You can't expect Chalkbeat to delve too deeply into questions like those, because you know, their reporters are busy, and haven't got time to think about all that stuff.

The important thing, though, is that Eva get her space. After all, Mayor Bill de Blasio ran on an anti-charter platform and won an overwhelming victory, but screw him and everyone who voted for him (and don't even mention that, ever). Governor Cuomo mounted his white steed and rode to Eva's rescue, passing a law that NYC had to pay for Eva's charter schools whether the city wanted them or not. (And for the record, I don't recall UFT leadership raising a peep in protest.)

Not to belabor the point, but Chalkbeat reporters have a lot of things to do. It isn't easy running a Gates-Walton funded operation. They don't have time to find answers to nagging questions,  let alone speak to lowly teachers. If you read yesterday's comment section, you'll see they actually don't even know any, so they asked a commenter who teaches in LA whether he could put them in touch with NYC teachers. Because, you know, they're Very Important, and he's a teacher. Therefore he has nothing better to do than find them contacts in their own town. That's the sort of bold, proactive journalism we've come to expect from Chalkbeat.

In fact, because they pay a whole lot of people a whole lot of money, the charter folks have gotten this story out to a whole lot of local press. You'd think maybe Chalkbeat, with its sole focus on education, might provide a little more depth to the story, but you'd be wrong. From reading Chalkbeat, you'd think there was space all over the city, just waiting for Eva to appropriate it.

Evidently, Chalkbeat is unaware of issues like oversized classes and overcrowding, because honestly, who cares about that stuff? Not Walton and Gates, who fund Chalkbeat. So why should they bother looking into stuff like that? I mean, how would that help Families for Excellent Schools or Eva Moskowitz? How would it help E4E, the Gates-funded group Chalkbeat turns to when it needs the vital opinions of former teachers?

Here on planet earth, I work in a school that overcrowded to the point of bursting. We're slated to have over 4,700 students, more than ever, and I have no idea how we are going to accommodate them. With the help of UFT, we were able to negotiate an annex that will provide us with ten extra classrooms after we lose the trailers. But that will take a few years, and while we wait the DOE has generously provided up with hundreds of extra students, pretty much canceling the value of the extra space before we even get it.

But hey, why worry about that? The important thing is that Moskowitz get her space, and that paid charter shills drown out the voices of those of us who actually do this work. Why on earth would we give extra space to actual public school students? Who lobbies for them?

Actually I do. So do people like Leonie Haimson, Diane Ravitch, Carol Burris, Jeanette Deutermann and others. So do a whole lot of working teachers. What do they think about this?

If you're relying on Chalkbeat for information, you'll never find out.

Reformy Chalkbeat Doubles Down on ATRs, Informs Readers It Knows Nothing

In yet another article, reformy Chalkbeat ponders the issues involved with the ATR. Naturally, they don't bother to interview an actual ATR, because what value could that possibly have? As usual, the experience of the people living through this particular social experiment is given not a single word. After all, why should they talk to working teachers when Students First and others pay people to spout The Gospel According to Gates and Walmart, both of whom fund Chalkbeat?

The first question Chalkbeat has is about the average number of years an ATR teacher has. Naturally, they bring up the cost of the ATR so their readers and funders can deplore it and call for their heads. Then it cites seven-year-old figures, because why bother digging for new ones? And why bother talking to ATR teachers and reflecting on their experience? If they were to do that, they might as well be education bloggers, or others who actually talk to ATR teachers on a daily basis. You won't see people like that writing for Chalkbeat anytime soon. So the answer to Chalkbeat's big question is, "We don't know."

The next urgent question Chalkbeat has is how many teachers are in the ATR for disciplinary reasons. Naturally Chalkbeat goes to TNTP, created by Michelle Rhee, because you can just never have too much reforminess is a piece of education reporting. And for the record, the TNTP CEO is another guy who trashes ATRs in the pages of Campbell Brown's blog, so his opinion, while utterly predictable, is indispensable. What teachers may have been accused of, whether they have been deemed guilty of said accusations, or whether the charges were trumped-up nonsense is of no relevance and therefore not even mentioned. It's always easier to assume they are all unfit even though none have been found to be. And again, Chalkbeat does not waste one minute of valuable time talking to an actual teacher and answers the question, "We don't know."

How long have teachers been in the pool? Chalkbeat again goes to teacher-bashing TNTP, because why bother talking to anyone else? Teachers? ATR teachers? Meh. After all, Chalkbeat reporters aren't paid by the hour.  The answer? "We don't know." In fairness, Chalkbeat also suggests a principal thinks ATR teachers may not have received PD, and may therefore be unfit. Every teacher reading this has been to PD, and every teacher reading this could have advised Chalkbeat on its value. Fortunately for Chalkbeat, they don't talk to working teachers, so that makes their job a little easier.

Chalkbeat also asks where ATR teachers have worked in the past. As someone who regularly communicates with ATR teachers, I'd say, "Everywhere." Chalkbeat, of course, can't be bothered talking to those of us who actually do the work, so their answer, yet again, is "We don't know." But it's important because the teachers, the ones they have not established to have done anything wrong, may have done something wrong, and may be placed in low income areas. Here's a newsflash, Chalkbeat. Anyone may have done something wrong. You, for example, may have done a half-baked, biased job of reporting, and people in low-income areas may rely on you for information.

Finally, Chalkbeat asks the important question--what are ATR teachers certified in? And guess what? They don't know. Chalkbeat thinks ATR teachers may need retraining, because they may be certified in subjects that aren't that popular. In fairness, there's a lot of that going around. I heard somewhere there were journalists who presented and published features on subjects about which they know little or nothing. Of course, I didn't bother speaking to any journalists before coming to this conclusion, because why bother? Chalkbeat wouldn't.

For the record, I am in total agreement with my friends at the ICE blog, who suggest the aim of the ceaseless and baseless attacks on the ATR is to bust union. A lot of people don't know it, but we are all ATRs. Just be in the wrong place at the right time, and it could be you.

A Principal Who Inspires

Did your principal come from the Leadership Academy? Does she think she's God? Does she lock herself in the office and ignore the halls? Does she let her APs run rampant, doing pretty much any damn thing without consequence? Does she tread all over the contract, appointing her BFFs to plum positions and keeping them there forever? Is her mother the chancellor?

Okay, so here's a story about a person who became principal for all the right reasons. Amazingly, this guy was the janitor for 27 years, and yet another inspirational principal saw something in him. The principal pushed him to go back to school, and he became a teacher, and then principal. When you think about all the principals having nervous breakdowns over test scores, to the exclusion of all else, it's great to see a principal who actually looks at people, sees their potential, and encourages them to reach it. I mean, this principal is clearly a teacher at heart.

I've been teaching for over thirty years, and I've been observed many times by many people. I've received many pieces of paper. Some of them have been helpful, and others not. I once had an AP actually plagiarize an elaborate lesson plan I used rather than bother to write anything. I guess writing is a strain for some people. It's kind of remarkable such people choose to be school administrators. The most memorable feedback I ever got was from a principal who observed me, promised to write me up, and never did. He said, "Those kids love you." I don't really see how a written observation could have improved on that.

This notwithstanding, there is one person who has observed me more than anyone else, and that person happens to be a school custodian. Back when I was in the trailer, I was usually the last one there. He would be cleaning the adjacent trailer, and would walk in to pick up and drop off things. I saw a friendly native speaker of English willing to interact with my kids, and he was always ready. He was also great with the kids. I could absolutely see him as a leader.

Leadership is not a position or an appointment. It is the result of influencing others through your credibility.

— Jim Knight (@jck4life) August 5, 2017

Isn't that a great thought? How many so-called leaders have you met who inspired no one? In Spanish, being educated implies being able to deal well and treat people with courtesy. They have a saying, Tiene doctorado, pero ne es educado. He has a doctorate, but he isn't educated. It's clear to me that the opposite is also true. Some people without degrees are great with people. (And no, I'm not advocating we do away with certification and hope for the best, because that's just nuts.)

In fact, my kids loved this custodian, and his interactions with them gave them confidence. He got the kids to hear and intereact with another authentic and non-threatening voice, and he was happy to do so. I could easily see him as a school leader. All he'd need to do was go to school, like the guy in the story did.

In fact, there is one person in our school who went from a DC37 gig in the stockroom to being a social studies teacher. I've never seen him teach, but I know him to be smart, and to have a good heart. That's what I'd want if I were picking a teacher, but as a mere teacher, all I get to do is sit in on C-30 hearings for administrators.

If you're out in the halls, you can really see what's going on in a school building. Sadly, a lot of custodians see more about a lot of principals. But it's great to read a story about someone who set a tough goal for himself and reached it. I'd love to read more stories like this one.

Added Later

That's what Trump's toadie Stephen Miller said about the Emma Lazarus poem on the Statue of Liberty, while pushing a plan to reduce immigration. So screw your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. Wretched refuse? Don't even think about it.

It was added later, so it doesn't count. Never mind that France created the statue and Americans added it later. By Trump standards, anything added later doesn't count. Things are the way they are, and they need to stay that way forever.

When the United States began, slavery was legal. Personally, I'm horrified by the notion of slavery. And given the prison system, if you've seen the documentary 13th, you could argue it's not completely abolished yet. But hey, what's to stop Trump's thugs from getting up and saying they were re-instituting it? They could use the same argument--abolition was added later.

And what about women? You may have heard that they can vote these days, but that wasn't always the case. That's another one of those amendment thingies, and it wasn't in effect until 1920. Modern day right-wingers seem hellbent on erasing the twentieth century, so why not just take away that right? For one thing, women tend not to vote in great enough numbers for Orange Is the New President. And for another, it was added later. Trumpies have already established that as an argument, so why not trot it out again?

Let's take a look at this free speech stuff. That comes out of that First Amendment, and as we all know, being an amendment, it was also added later. So hey, banning Muslims? That's fine because there's no freedom of religion. And we just bankrupted Gawker, for the offense of reporting on the sex life of Hulk Hogan, so maybe reporters will just shut up and mind their own business so as not to offend Orange Man and his BFFs anyway. But hey, it's added later.

Let's take a look at labor unions. (Full disclosure--I'm in one.) There weren't any around when we started this country. It was, "No Irish Need Apply," and, "If You Don't Come in Sunday, Don't Come in Monday." There was not 40-hour week. There were no holidays. There was no overtime. There were no health benefits. There were no contracts, or grievance procedures, or bathroom breaks. Those things were all added later. And with Trump's Supreme Court, it looks like we're gonna make the whole country "Right to Work," pushing union back a few decades right away.

You know, this added later argument is pretty compelling. You can pretty much use it to roll back any and all progress. And that, my friends, as much as anything, epitomizes the Trumpie plan to Make America Great Again. Stop being snowflakes. Forget about all those frivolous rights people have fought and died for. If you want privilege, have the foresight to be born into it, like Donald Trump was.

Otherwise, stop your whining.

Reformy Chalkbeat Deems Paying Teachers Inconvenient

Who'd have thought that Chalkbeat NY, after taking all that money from Gates and the Walmart family, would suddenly go all community service on us? Evidently, it's not convenient for principals to pay teacher salaries. You know, they're expensive, and that money could go to all sorts of things, not the least of which is stocking the principal's office with free donuts and prostitutes. After all, that principal's job is stressful, what with all those pushy teachers demanding money and stuff.

And hey, isn't teaching a calling? Shouldn't teachers be begging for the right to do this job? After all, it's for the children. Shouldn't teachers be role models, waking up at 4 AM to clean stables, working nights at the car wash, and doing the whole teaching thing just because they're dedicated? Won't they then inspire children to also work for free so that Walmart, which funds Chalkbeat, can also stop having to pay people when they work? Can't the punters see how this will maximize profit?

I just adore the photo Chalkbeat chooses to recycle, the one of a dozen people organized by the well-financed so-called Families for Excellent Schools standing around stereotyping ATR teachers. It would take me about five minutes to organize a dozen people to stand outside the Chalkbeat office with signs that say "Chalkbeat Sucks." I wonder if I could get papers to cover that. Probably not, because oddly enough, papers don't seem to find crappy reporting a problem.

For example, I've been reading the same story for weeks--ATR teachers suck, and they are a big drain on the budget. Why should we pay them if they aren't working full-time? Also, if they are appointed to work full-time, that sucks because they suck. Why? Well, some of them have been charged with this or that, and they therefore must be guilty, even if the process says they were not. Also, the people who haven't been charged are all guilty too, for no reason whatsoever, and therefore they also suck.

Scott Conti, some principal somewhere, is quoted saying schools might not want them and that they will cost more in the future. You know, salaries go up, and those unreasonable teachers still want to get paid, and are unwilling to work for free. I suggest that Scott Conti work for free, and lead by example. Let him wake up and clean stables and work the car wash at night. Or maybe he could get a squeegee and stand around a bridge with a rag. You know, he could set an example of good old American ingenuity.

I'm also disappointed in UFT leadership, which seems to believe that, even with the idiotic so-called Fair Student Funding, that there will be no issue hiring senior teachers. In fact, schools themselves now have to pay teachers out of their own budgets. Why would a principal hire a 100K teacher when a 50K teacher would do? After all, who values experience anymore? You could stock your whole building with newbies and turn them over every three years before they get tenure and start speaking up.

And hey, if you do get stuck hiring ATRs, why not harrass them until they leave?

At the very least, one Bronx principal said, he’d be wary of the hire. “If someone automatically puts an ATR into my school,” he said, “I would go in there and observe them quite a bit.” 

Isn't it cool how the principal knows what he's doing and therefore chooses not to be identified? And isn't it cool how Chalkbeat just goes along with it? But wait, they've saved the biggest whopper for last:

City education officials said it isn’t so easy to rig an evaluation since it relies on a “well-defined rubric based on evidence.”  

Oh yeah, the Danielson rubric is absolutely infallible. If it says this, then that's what principals will do. In fact, the only time Danielson rubric doesn't work is when, you know, principals report things that didn't happen and fail to see things that did. I saw video evidence of a rigged observation where a supervisor failed to see things that happened and distorted things that did. Yet the city cannot imagine such a thing.

Over at Banana Kelly the principal didn't even bother to show up to classes before writing observations. She got caught but how many did not? And if I saw video evidence of some Boy Wonder supervisor rating things that didn't happen, how many times could that supervisor have done it when it wasn't filmed?  And how many times is that replicated citywide?

You won't learn that reading Chalkbeat. Chalkbeat couldn't be bothered to interview a single working teacher, let alone one of the ATRs about whom they are ostensibly writing.

Great work, Chalkbeat! Orwell would be impressed.

Same ATR Attack, Different Day

In the Daily News, there's yet another hit piece on ATR teachers. This one is unique in that it's written by a public school parent. However, it fails to distinguish itself beyond that. It contains the same tired old arguments that every other hit piece has.

I have to trust that the principal is picking the best teachers and holding them to high standards.

Well, actually you don't. There are some awful principals around. Two of them were just bounced very publicly--the one from CPE 1 and the one from Townsend Harris. And if you read Sue Edelman over at the Post, you hear about all sorts of hijinks from these figures. In fact, assuming that principals are infallible is almost as offensive as assuming ATRs are "dud teachers." But it's equally ridiculous.

They land in the ATR — sometimes for a short period, sometimes for a long one — because they are unable or unwilling to find full-time teaching positions after losing their placements.

Actually quite a few land in the ATR because their schools close. A whole lot of schools were closed by Michael Bloomberg for test scores. In a game of musical chairs, he ended up closing even new schools he'd opened to replace original closures. With Mike Bloomberg, nothing was ever his fault. The buck stopped with the ATR teachers.

We've always known it was tough for older teachers to find jobs outside the city. We cost more money, and we know our rights. A lot of principals, the ones the writer deems infallible, would rather deal with more pliable newbies. And under so-called fair student funding, schools have to pay actual teacher salaries. Principals might think twice before laying out extra tens of thousands of dollars. Of course, that wasn't contained in this, or indeed any hit piece on ATR teachers.

In a rational world, if a teacher couldn’t find a job somewhere in our massive school system, he or she would be cut loose. 

I'm gonna have to make an inference here that the United States, led by Donald Trump, is somehow representative of a "rational world." In Europe, unions are more powerful and seniority rights mean a lot more. In New York City we gave them up in 2005. I know because when I was a new teacher, I got bumped out of several schools. If placing hundreds of teachers in limbo for no good reason is rational, if firing them for no reason is rational, I shudder to imagine what is not.

We know that in 2014, a third of the teachers in the ATR had unsatisfactory ratings and a quarter faced disciplinary charges.

What we don't know is why they had unsatisfactory ratings. Was it because they didn't do their jobs well, or was it because they reported malfeasance by the principal? I know people who fit that description. Or was it because the principal was exercising a personal vendetta? I've seen that too. As for disciplinary charges, they are just that. Were they proven? What were they? I know a person who had to pay a fine for missing one meeting and asking someone else to place a sign on an office door. Does that make him incompetent? You'd think so if all the info you had was this article.

But all the mayor seems to care about is rewarding the teachers union during an election year. So instead of fighting to protect public-school kids, he is focused on building support for his reelection campaign.

That's what you call a strawman. Until and unless this writer can establish to me that she can read the mind of Bill de Blasio, it's nonsensical. You might just as easily assume that the city is telling the truth when it says it wishes to put ATR teachers to work. Of course, in the "rational" world of this writer, people are fired based on unsubstantiated accusations. Hey, it's just as likely de Blasio believes people are innocent until proven guilty. I read somewhere that was the American way.

Parents should trust that only quality teachers can stay in the system, but the ATR pool is evidence of the opposite.

This is an odd conclusion, since the writer has offered absolutely no evidence that ATRs are not quality teachers. That's one of the disadvantages of basing arguments on stereotypes rather than facts. You could just as easily substitute any racist or bigoted conclusion here. People of this color, this religion, this nationality are all terrorist, drunk, cheap, stupid, or whatever. Allowing them in our country keeps us from making it great again.

More than half of them had stopped even applying for teaching jobs, meaning they weren’t so interested in being in the classroom. 

Yet another foray into mind reading. Now I'm not sure how many doors you need to have slammed in your face before you stop knocking on them, but people are intelligent and learn from experience. In fact, the DOE places black marks on certain ATRs and warns people not to hire them. And even if they didn't, now that fair student funding enables principals to hire on the cheap, no one's surprised to see that city principals are now picking and choosing just like Long Island principals do.

It's unfortunate that superficial nonsense like this is what passes for argument nowadays. But in a country quite literally run by mediocrity and worse, that's what you get.

Close Reading Is Child Abuse

I'm always surprised when I hear people advocate for "close reading," especially if they're teachers. We really ought to know better. Of course, if you're on the supervisor track, I can only assume you're required to keep up on all the latest fads and trends, and then use the most recent and grooviest buzzwords to describe them to potential employers.

We will enhance classroom-based curriculum integration via close reading, and therefore visualize diverse multiple intelligences across cognitive and affective domains.

I can only suppose when words like Common Core fall out of favor you need to staple your tongue to the roof of your mouth to keep yourself from uttering them.

I'm an ESL teacher, but theories I've studied about language acquisition lend themselves to reading whether you're an ELL or not. Stephen Krashen suggested there is an affective filter that rises when you hand students material to which they cannot relate. They look at it, see it as incomprehensible, and determine it to be not worth their time. In fact, they're very likely correct. Honestly, if you hand me a long, long treatise on The History of Cement, the likelihood I'll read it is quite low.

Krashen thinks ELLs respond best to reading material at or just a little bit above their level. And by reading material, I'd suggest it doesn't have to be the Gettysburg Address, completely out of context. I mean, sure, that makes sense to Common Core architect David Coleman, whose famous theory, in his own words, is that no one gives a shit what you feel or think. But I know exactly how successful I'd be with a lesson like that, and I'm sure it would make no difference whether my students were born here or anywhere on this planet. (In Coleman's defense, I am not entirely sure which planet he comes from.)

Everything I know about teaching suggests you take material and somehow tie it into a student's existing knowledge and interest. If kids can relate to it, they're far more likely to be motivated. I'm fortunate in that I teach English, something these kids direly need and something with direct application to every aspect of their lives. But even so, I work to personalize everything I teach, to make students touch it, use it, and make it their own.

The thing that really jumps out at me about close reading is it's not only counter-intuitive to all my experience, but it also contradicts the research. Of course David Coleman, who knew everything already, couldn't be bothered with any stinking research. Too bad we allowed him, Bill Gates, and Arne Duncan to force their half-baked ideas on cash-starved states via the state-sanctioned bribe that was No Child Left Behind.

This notwithstanding, if you're a teacher, or even if you're an administrator, it kind of behooves you to encourage love of reading, particularly when the likely alternative is hatred of reading. Administrators and would-be administrators who don't know that are incompetent, to say the least. I'm reminded of a song by the Kinks called Dedicated Follower of Fashion. "One week he's in polka dots, the next week he's in stripes cause he's a dedicated follow of fashion."

Take a listen to the song, and substitute portfolios, APPR, the workshop model, and every fad and trend you've ever heard at the September staff meeting for the fashion references. Try to think of close reading as a pair of culottes. And if you don't know what culottes are, you need not bother looking them up. You'll probably never hear of them again, and they are therefore of no relevance whatsoever to you. David Coleman would make you read a book about them, just so your life could be as tedious as his must be.

I want better things for my students, and I certainly hope you want better for yours as well.

On Putting Children First

You hear that a lot. The DOE motto under Klein was Children First, Always. It sounds like a great thing. Let's take care of the kids. How could anyone argue with that? If you think that's wrong, you must hate children. It feels like a pretty good argument if you consider argument a tool to shut off virtually all response.

Here's the thing, though--a lot of people who chant this mantra are part of a system that does no such thing. I'd argue that the very best advocates for children are their parents, and the city fought to keep them out of School Leadership Team meetings, going so far as to ignore a judge's order otherwise. Why? Likely to preclude things like the activist parents from CPE 1 ousting an abusive principal. 

It appears the city wants to put "children first" via doing any damn thing it pleases. Otherwise, why would it have placed another administrator with a demonstrated history of abuse in charge of Townsend Harris, a well-respected Queens selective high school? I mean, seriously, why can't we all get along? Isn't that how we set examples for the children we're putting first?

And on yet another plane of putting children first, there are class sizes. In high schools, our max for most classes is 34. In my building, at least, it's become more norm than max. And yet the CFE law said we should have classes of no more than 25 by now. I find it amazing to be lectured about putting students first by people in a system that denies children one of very few things that have been demonstrated to actually help them.

Let's put aside the hypocrisy of those who lecture us, just for now, and let's focus on when they do it. In my experience, it happens when you stand up for your rights. Let's say you file a grievance because you got nothing you asked for. I once sat with an AP who said, "Gee, I'd love to fix it, but it's impossible." She then showed me a program, made up in a Delaney book with movable cards. I looked at it for one minute, swapped two cards, and asked, "Why don't we do this?"

The AP looked at my suggestion for a minute. She thought for a while, and then said, "Well, it's bad for the children to change their teacher. I'm gonna leave it like this because it's all about the children." So, in other words, screw you, screw the contract, I don't want to inconvenience myself or admit I made an error that could easily be corrected. Instead I'll do nothing, blame you for not caring about children, and let you proceed with the grievance that conclusively establishes you do not.

Usually, when I hear someone speak about putting children first, it has more to do with telling someone to shut up and stop asserting themselves. Why are you talking about your contractual rights instead of the children? It's a strawman argument they pull out and they think you won't notice. If you assert your rights you therefore don't care about children. I had some moron from SCI scream at me that I didn't care about children because I insisted a member be represented before talking to him. The fact that he was broadcasting a baseless lie about me indicated my member needed all the help she could get.

Although a whole lot of DOE reps are not as overtly slimy as he was, they're doing the same thing when they tell you to shut up, sit down and do as you are told for the sake of the children. Remember that it is you who wakes up each and every morning to serve those very children, while those people who lecture you sit around each day doing God only knows what. In fact, when you sit down and shut up, you make their jobs easier. They can tell themselves they are saving the children by getting you to waive and ignore your rights. In fact, they are doing no such thing.

We are role models. If we wish to put children first, we want them to have more, not fewer, options and more, not fewer, rights. We want them to stand up against injustice.

Sometimes people who talk about putting children first don't like disagreements. Sometimes they don't like it when teachers stand up for their rights. In fact, sometimes they don't like union. In fact, there's a "social justice" charter school that just fired a teacher for joining the UFT. It's amazing that people who dare to wrap themselves in a social justice banner can openly reject their absolute right to join a union.

Here's the thing--these people are not doing this to put children first. They may believe they are, but they are not. They are doing this for their own convenience. The SCI guy wanted to get this done right now. He didn't want to bother with representation, or rights, or any of that nonsense. If the member got herself in trouble, well, too bad for her. If I folded when he shouted me down, well, so much the better. Maybe he gets a gold star every time he intimidates a UFT member into waiving her rights. Who knows?

First and foremost, we are role models. Do we want our children to grow up and be sheep? Do we want them to grow up and be steamrolled like the coyote, pictured above, every time they open their mouths? Do we want them to believe that social justice is any damn thing the boss says it is? Do we want them to live in perpetual fear?

If you answered no to those questions, you know the way to place children first is to assert yourself. You know you need to teach children to assert themselves as well. I'm not afraid of children disagreeing with me, and I don't need to tell them to sit down and shut up when they do so. I will listen to them and present my point of view. If they're right and I'm wrong, I'll just say so. I have no idea why some people are so insistent on being right all the time. It's an impossible and crazy burden.

We get up each and every morning to directly serve these children. Let others sit around in offices doing whatever and lecture us on putting children first. Let them worry about shutting us up so they can spend a few extra minutes sitting around in their offices. But remember one thing--we are the ones who put children first. That's why we spend every day of our working lives with them.

If we fold when faced with nonsensical strawman arguments from overpaid bureaucrats, we aren't doing our jobs. Assert your rights, lead by example, and teach our children to do the same.

It's C-30 Day!

Imagine a supervisor who, one year, has a teacher who has an A-fib episode every time he sees him. Imagine, the following year, that another teacher in this department has a massive coronary right out in the hall. Imagine, the year after that, another teacher in the same department actually dies in service, quite prematurely.

Let's further imagine that the teacher who died told the chapter leader the supervisor advised him to get a .8 comp-time gig, a gig which did not exist. This was so he could teach only one class and therefore be rated S or U.  If that didn't happen, the supervisor said he was going to have to rate him ineffective. Imagine that it tortured the teacher to his dying day.

Now imagine another supervisor who was a lowly teacher when you became chapter leader. And imagine you added this person's department to your email list, as a result of another member collecting the addresses. Imagine this person, after your first staff email, approaches you.

"Where did you get my private email address?" she asks.

"Ms. S. gave it to me," you answer.

"I feel like I was raped!" she says.

"Oh my gosh, I'm so sorry," you say. "I'll take you off the list right away."

"No, that's OK," she says. "You can leave me on."

Imagine the relationship you'd have with people like that. Imagine that you had to deal with them each and every day. Imagine you got daily complaints from members about what they did, much of which was on par with what was related above.  Imagine they use Danielson like a sledge hammer to intimidate rather than support staff. How on earth do people like that get jobs?

In a completely unrelated matter, today I have a double-the-fun C-30 for two supervisors in my building. And yes, that is how administrators are chosen in Fun City. One is for a social studies assistant principal, and another is for a special education assistant principal. It's important that members of our school community get a voice in how that happens.

The voice is sorely limited, though. For example, I have no idea who the candidates will be, nor was UFT consulted in any way. I can only assume that our PTA was not consulted either. It's a fairly good assumption that neither students nor DC 37 got a say either. Now this is not to suggest anything bad about the candidates. For all I know, they are the best candidates on earth. On the other hand, they could just as easily be the worst. In that case, after a selection, there would be little recourse for the school community, unless they took the extraordinary step of organizing like CPE 1 did.

Here's the other thing--whether the candidates are good, bad or indifferent, our choices amount to recommendations. We can rate candidate A at 100%, and candidate D at zero, and the principal can still select candidate D. Who knows why? You don't actually get to find out. You give your feedback, but once the decision is made you get no rationale, no nothing.

At the C-30, you sign a document stating that you will not discuss the particulars of the meeting anywhere. So I won't be blogging it. But it's gonna be a long night for me and everyone there. This is not the most fun thing I do, and one reason is because I've reflected on the actual voice we have in this process--very little, as far as I can tell.

How seriously do principals take committee recommendations? Not only will we never know, but we're also sworn to never even discuss it. So as far is we know, this may be the best thing we ever did, or the worst. You never know exactly who is gonna go nuts once there's a little power on the table. And even if you actually know the people, you could sit there knowing they are completely nuts when all you can do is ask the same question you asked everyone else. You're not supposed to talk about the times you've seen them abusive to teachers or students, or indeed any personal experiences.

So you leave your experience at the door and the APs in position. Until the next C-30, of course, when they're up for principal.

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.

Rick and Morty and Unity

I have a confession. At night I watch cartoons on Adult Swim until I fall asleep. One of the most bizarre cartoons they show at night is called Rick and Morty. It's about a grandfather who's some kind of scientific genius dragging Morty all over the universe.

The other night, there was an episode about a group called Unity. It's this being or consciousness that's constantly replicating itself. It does this by vomiting in the mouths of its victims and taking over their bodies. See the video below for an example.

You may not be surprised that I saw parallels to our union, what with the organization having the exact same name. The pale looking guy in the middle is Rick, and all the blue people around him are Unity. So that could be me at a chapter leader meeting, except for the scientific genius part. Of course this episode took it a little further. Evidently Rick was having an affair with Unity, seemingly in the form of the young blue woman to his left, your right.

Now as far as I know, signing up for UFT Unity does not entail having someone vomit in your mouth. Rather, it entails signing this loyalty oath, which used to be available on the Unity website. For some reason, they took it down after PJSTA posted it publicly. The best way to advance in the union is to sign it. If you don't, well, that pension consulting gig might elude you.

I'll tell you the truth--I really like some people in Unity. I'll tell you another truth--I really don't like some other people in Unity. They don't seem to have a code about how they treat non-Unity members. So some people in Unity are reasonable and open, while others are kind of defensive and proprietary. I figure it's better to be reasonable and open, particularly if you purport to represent the union, but that's just me.

Now I understand forming a political caucus. I'm part of one, as a matter of fact. I also understand espousing a particular series of values. I share a lot of Unity's ostensible values. I'm absolutely pro-teacher and pro-union. I don't believe in abuse by administrators, and I think we need to take a stand against Boy Wonders  (even if they're girls).

Sometimes, though, I'm not sure. I don't understand why we supported mayoral control, ever, and I'm not sure why we didn't oppose it vehemently when it came up this year. Though it hasn't been as bad under de Blasio, there's no guarantee he'll be around forever. We suffered through 20 years of GOP mayors here in deep blue NYC, Also, de Blasio's mayoral control has been far from absolute, as the state did an end run around it, forcing him to pay rent for charters. (Of course, my bursting at the seams school has 4728 incoming students, and no one's forcing him to pay rent for us.)

I certainly understand the argument that, in times of crisis, we need to pull together. The only thing is, I can't recall when we were not in crisis. It wasn't time to oppose when we were facing Bloomberg, or Cuomo, and it isn't time to oppose when we face Trump, or "the Presidential Election," as Unity calls him. I can only suppose it wasn't time to oppose when we faced Giuliani either, though I wasn't involved with union politics back then. Is the answer, then, to keep your mouth shut forever and ever and just hope for the best?

Of course not. Unity is wrong sometimes. The Democrats, with Unity's early endorsement, lost the last national election because they presented the populous with a warmed-over agenda that consisted largely of, "We aren't Trump." In fact, I voted for Hillary in the general precisely on that basis. But I enthusiastically pulled the lever for Bernie Sanders in the primary.

We're gonna have to pull out all the stops after Janus. It might not be good enough to say, "Well, you still have a job," when you're sent out to teach subjects you don't understand and rotate schools week to week. It might not be good enough to say, "Well, we did the best we could," when Moskowitz takes over your school and places a non-union test-prep factory in its stead. It won't be good enough to hear "Fifty years ago we sacrificed money for class size regs," while you stand in front of 50 kids in a trailer and try to persuade them that anyone other than you takes them seriously.

And whether Unity knows it or not, that's why a vibrant opposition is necessary. There are voices that need to be heard, and with three out of four teachers not even voting in union elections, I'm not highly optimistic union is a prime concern for them. We all sink or swim together, and I'll work toward the latter. If we want everyone to pay union dues, we're gonna have to stop pandering toward a privileged class. That's the sort of thing that empowers the likes of Donald Trump, and it ain't gonna work for us.

Under Assault

Truer words never spoken. We don't have children working in coal mines and factories around here. But it doesn't have to stay that way. We've heard GOP pols like Newt Gingrich trash child labor laws, saying that kids ought to go to work cleaning their schools. If you think Newt is worried about your children or mine, I have a bridge to sell you.

Sure, Newt just wants the kids to clean up a little in school. And sure, the Supreme Court will just free up Americans to not pay union dues. No big deal, right? Well, not really. It's a slippery slope with child labor. Pretty soon you'll be right back to where Utah Phillips said we used to be.

And make no mistake, Donald Trump's Supreme Court is not worried about how much extra change is in the pockets of working people. Withholding union dues while living with union privilege is shirking responsibility. It's selfish, it's undemocratic, and it's an essential revolt against community.

I regularly wonder what I will do as chapter leader with people who opt not to pay union dues. One UFT official told me we would still have to represent everyone. I am honestly not sure how I will do that. I can tell you I will have little or no respect for anyone who thinks they should be carried on the rest of our backs. I have options, though.

I remember a chapter leader I once had, and how he used to handle things. Whenever you would approach him, he would listen and say, "Put a letter in my box." Once, he confided in me that 80% of the people to whom he said that didn't follow through. It didn't make a whole lot of difference, though. If you tell me to put a letter in your box, I'll put a letter in your box. To the best of my recollection, he gave the same attention to you whether you put a letter in his box or not.

I never tell people to do that. I have an email I use for school UFT activities, and I am very good about getting back to people. Some problems are easy, especially after I've seen them repeatedly. Sometimes I look up answers at UFT.org, copy and paste, and people think I'm a genius. I also have a whole network of people who will help me with questions, some of whom work for UFT and some of whom don't. Sometimes I copy my district rep. if I think he can help.

So I'm wondering what I do with non-dues payers. Should I treat them like everyone else, and hope they come to their senses? In our school, we have a Sunshine Fund. My least favorite activity, as chapter leader, is collecting for it. I generally assign committee members to help and sometimes play cleanup. But people who don't pay don't pay. It really doesn't matter if I win grievances for them. I'd be surprised if these people paid union dues, but I'd respect them a lot more if they did.

But what if they don't? Is it put a letter in my box time? Should I devote my energy into teaching them the virtue and meaning of union? Will I be able to make that $1300 speech? Would you?

What do you think?

Reformy War on Teacher Professionalism Continues

Are you seeing a pattern here? Moskowitz and her pals don't want to bother with all that messy certification nonsense. They want to do it their way and take whoever they want. And why not? Their teachers aren't unionized and don't last anyway. When this one goes, just open another can. Reformy Bellwether Education wants to do away with pensions because they're supposedly unfair to the people who quit after five minutes. Now here's a piece saying do away with certification altogether.

This is not a new idea. Self-styled education expert Nicholas Kristof suggested this years ago. Evidently Merryl Streep and Colin Powell were unqualified to teach.The fact that neither one of them had any desire to teach was neither here nor there. New York City students were being deprived of imaginary teachers, and we needed to address this crisis immediately! The new arguments are not much better, actually.

Funding per student has been rising sharply for decades, resulting in lower class size, but such expenditures seem not to have succeeded.

I don't know what planet this guy lives on, but here in NYC, the opposite has occurred. In fact, there's a lawsuit right now trying to change it. We are the largest district in the country, with the highest class sizes in the state. The writer should be delighted to learn that maximum class size is now pretty much standard. Doubtless he'd revel in our busting-at-the-seams overcrowded school.

The key to successful education is to attract good teachers. We can try to do so by raising teachers’ salaries (as commonly advocated). But this strategy also seems to fail, partly because higher incomes go to both good teachers and bad, giving bad teachers as much incentive as good ones to become and remain teachers.

I don't remember much about economics, but there is the whole supply and demand thing. In fact, as you'll see, it's pretty much the crux of this writer's argument. But it doesn't apply, evidently, when it comes to, you know, paying teachers. The fact that half of them walk before they hit five years is neither here nor there. Then there's that bad teachers trope. Evidently they are everywhere, though there is little or no evidence to support this supposition.

And then the writer goes on to the main point--that certification is keeping out good teachers. To his credit, the writer doesn't mention Streep or Powell. Here's the point:

How can this be? Despite much research, nobody can say what skills, qualities, or training good teachers need. 

So therefore, let's drop requirements altogether.  That's what passes for logic in this piece. So, now that we've given up certification requirements, how do we weed out those bad teachers wandering the landscape like a zombie plague?

By far, the most effective way to improve teacher quality is to require administrators to selectively retain, after the first few years of experience, only the more effective teachers. The biggest barrier to improving teacher quality is therefore union contracts that block such selective retentions and, with lock step pay, eliminate success-based compensation.

Okay, let's examine that. Given the plague of zombie bad teachers, we need to address this crisis. But on the other hand, who hired these zombies? My guess it was the administrators, you know, the ones we're depending on to weed out the bad teachers. Who failed to get rid of this plague? Right again, the very same administrators. And wait, isn't there already a means of firing teachers for performance? Haven't we just enacted not one, but two laws to accomplish that in New York? And didn't Race to the Top insist on teacher certification requirements in all the states that took the money?

Let's take a look at "success-based compensation," otherwise known as merit pay. In fact, merit pay is an old, old idea that has never worked anywhere. Let me tell you something--I've outlasted many trends and one thing I can tell you is I've never made a whole lot of money. I'll also tell you I don't work for tips, and suggesting that I do, or that anyone does, will not stem the tide of teachers walking out the door.

The notion that it is difficult to get certified is pretty ridiculous. Hey, if it's too much trouble for you to get twelve education credits, maybe this isn't the job for you. The notion, propagated by this writer,  that colleges don't require certification is equally ridiculous. For me to work as an adjunct teacher of English as a second language, I needed a master's degree in applied linguistics. I didn't just grab it off a tree like an apple. If you want to work on a tenure track, for the few that are still around, you'd better have a doctorate, and not one of the ones you buy online for $169.

I don't know about you, but I'm a little concerned about who gets in front of my children, or yours. I'm not remotely comfortable with Eva Moskowitz, who keeps kids in test prep until they pee their pants, getting to decide. I'm not comfortable with abusive teachers who lack the common sense of salad vegetables.

So I'm sorry, but inconvenient as it is, I think we need standards for teachers. If the ones we have are too difficult, or not relevant enough, we can amend them. The notion of dumping them is part of a larger pattern, a pattern designed to eliminate career teachers and make us replaceable cogs.

We devote our lives to teaching American's children, and we deserve better. And for those who blather on about placing children first, our children deserve better too.

A Lesson for Neil deGrasse Tyson

I've had great respect for Neil deGrasse Tyson ever since the first time I saw him on Bill Maher's show. I mean, here's a guy, smarter than me, smarter than you, an astrophysicist, an acknowledged expert in his field, speaking the unvarnished truth. Climate change is science, and science is real. Disagreeing with it is like disagreeing with gravity. Then one day, he posts this:

The rise of flat-Earthers in society provides some of the best evidence for the failure of our educational system.

— Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) July 19, 2017

Now there are certainly better interpretations of this statement. After all, there's no context here whatsoever. Is he targeting teachers? Is he targeting the system? Is he questioning Common Core, which claims to create critical thinkers but actually gets kids so accustomed to tedium they might spend several decades working at Walmart without killing themselves?

Frankly, those aren't the first thoughts that came into my mind.

The rise of non-education experts pontificating on education pretty closely parallels the rise of flat-earthers. https://t.co/VUESgglvnB

— Arthur Goldstein (@TeacherArthurG) July 23, 2017

How long have we been reading nonsense from Bill Gates? Does it precede the nonsense from Donald Trump? It's hard to say, but for me it's like stereo. Gates nonsense in the right ear and Trump in the left. A frustrating cacophony of garbage, spread through the entire United States. And not by teachers, but rather by a strangely incurious press. In a country where Fox passes as news and millions view it voluntarily, we have issues. But were they taught that in schools? Aren't teachers regularly vilified for being too "liberal?"

Massive unaddressed poverty cannot be addressed by the educational system, despite the best efforts of flat-earthers like @FakeBetsyDeVos. https://t.co/VUESgglvnB

— Arthur Goldstein (@TeacherArthurG) July 23, 2017

Teachers in the United States are expected to singlehandedly overcome impossible home issues. Gates pretty much gave up on poverty, saying he couldn't fix that, but rather he could fix education. Of course he couldn't do that either. And what he's left us with is a junk science system under which we are judged by standardized test scores, a system deemed invalid by Tyson-level experts like Diane Ravitch and the American Statistical Association. Of course, Tyson himself doesn't seem to know that.

Flat-earthers ignore science just as educational reformies ignore research. But fine, blame the schools. Just like Trump and Trump Jr. https://t.co/VUESgglvnB

— Arthur Goldstein (@TeacherArthurG) July 23, 2017

Hey, everyone else does. Go ahead. Put out that statement, offer no context, and let everyone see it. You're an expert so you must be right. Never mind that it's well out of your field of expertise. Who could possibly take it the wrong way?

Glad to have you on board! Do you need a job? https://t.co/Rrj8FLPUi9

— Fake Betsy DeVos (@FakeBetsyDeVos) July 23, 2017

Really, Dr. Tyson, when you write things like that, you may as well be part of Team Trump. They're going to bend or break union so that working people can't organize. Do you seriously expect quelling teacher voice to ultimately benfit education? And just in case it's escaped your attention, teachers are pretty much the last bastion of vibrant unionism in these United States.

I can't read your mind, but a whole lot of people read your tweets. If you don't provide context, people will fill it in for themselves. In fact, poverty accounts for a whole lot of America's educational standing. Despite the nonsense propagated by Gates, and blindly promoted by Obama in the form of Race to the Top, education alone will not solve the issue.

And with all due respect, Dr. Tyson, if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Where Have All the Computers Gone?

Reformy Chalkbeat NY just ran a piece about how a lot of computers were missing from city schools. I'm not remotely surprised. I've been teaching since 1984, and I've been hearing stories like that almost since I started. My first exposure to computers, if I recall correctly, was that year, when we were sent to some PD to observe some crappy computer program that seemed a complete waste of time. Fortunately, I saw better things shortly thereafter.

The thing that hooked me on computers was the word processor. When I was studying for my master's, we were assigned to do groupwork for a course I was taking. One of the women in my group had a Commodore 64. She showed me the editing capacity of the included word processor and pretty much blew my mind. We did this project according to what we were good at--One woman designed and administered the project we were to write about, I wrote about it, my friend typed it on her magical word processor, and the other woman did nothing whatsoever. We all got As.

When I worked in John Adams, we had rooms full of computers. They were very expensive. The computers needed air-conditioning, unlike the humans, who were left to swelter and suffer in summer months. I remember being sent to the computer room once a week. One of my students identified a washing machine as a washing machine, but the computer said he was incorrect. It was a "clothes washer." How ignorant of us not to know.

Of course, ever since computers have been in school, there's been theft. My dad knew someone who worked for the DOE back then, when it was the Board of Education. He told me how his friend walked into a school, looked for 40 computers the school had been given, and didn't find them. He told them he'd be back the following week, and the computers had better be there too. And waddya know, they returned.

There are a million stories like that, I'm sure. I'm particularly sure because I knew no one back then, and the chances of someone like me hearing a story like that, were it isolated, were very low. I have a better one. A friend of mine was working in a large Manhattan high school in the late 80s. One day, two guys walked into the auditorium and said, "We're here for the piano." They walked out with a grand piano. No one asked them for credentials, and no one knows what happened to the piano.

Of course, those were the bad old days of community school boards. You know, the people would get elected, and they would steal all that stuff. Maybe the grand piano is in the home of some former board member. Who knows? Now, fortunately, we have mayoral control, and that doesn't happen. Instead, someone else steals the computers. You see why de Blasio and Cuomo and every reformy on God's green earth battles for mayoral control?

Technology is a very bad investment, actually. The shelf life of a computer is not long, maybe a few years. I don't know how many thousands of dollars I've wasted on them. For the last decade or so, I've been buying Macs. While they cost a little more up front, they last a lot longer and crap out a lot less.

And with all due respect, school computers suck for a whole lot of reasons. I certainly don't blame admin for buying them, and they'd be remiss if they didn't. But school wifi is incredibly buggy. You never know when or why it's gonna go down. Also, there's always competition for school computers. You never know when your colleague is going to need one, and you don't want to throw some student off a computer, saying, 'My work is more important than yours."

One of the best things I've ever bought is the Macbook Air I'm using right now. I bring it to work with me every day. I don't have to fight anyone when I need to write a PowerPoint. Sometimes at lunch, if I'm lucky, I can sneak off and write the blog. If I'm giving a test and a student doesn't show, I can look up the student's phone number without flashing it on the screen in front of the class. And when the school wifi drops dead I can tether it to my phone and use it anyway.

I don't know where the computers go. I don't know who steals them. I can only tell you it isn't me.

I realize, of course, that this narrows it down to a field of many.

Wolf in Bernie Sanders' Clothing

The Post pointed out that our good buddy Andrew Cuomo is taking a ton of cash from charters, and that's public record. Of course that's not the image Cuomo has been pushing lately. He's our good buddy, I hear at the DA. He's making nice.

Now it would be nice if we could take credit for that and say that Public School Proud caused a complete turnaround. I have to say, though, that opt-out, which we've failed to support, is a big factor. Parent activists kept their kids home from Cuomo's stupid tests in droves. They forced him to put off counting the tests for their kids. In fact, some of them didn't even count against teachers in Cuomo's junk-science based evaluation system. But not all of them, as all high school teachers know.

Not only that, but he just came up with a program under which NY residents can go to college tuition-free, under certain circumstances. You have to live here for a while, and you have to make it through on time, and a whole lot of people don't do that, but there you are. It's a whole lot better than nothing, which was the previous plan.

He's also standing up on health care. He's very much against the GOP plan to dump Obamacare, give a tax break to the uber-rich, and screw tens of millions of Americans, New Yorkers included. Oddly, like UFT leadership, he doesn't mention Trump by name. This is in stark contrast to Bill de Blasio, who seems to be running a winning campaign against Donald Trump. No one even seems to know who his opponents are.

After Hillary managed to lose the Presidential election to the least popular politician in human history, Governor Andy had to rethink his image. After all, he started out by saying he would go after unions. Now, as we face Janus and some serious survival issues, he's moving to make union dues completely tax-deductible.

Governor Andy has presided over two education laws that affect us all. Every teacher in New York City is dancing around the Danielson Rubric and trying to be highly effective. With the first law, Cuomo actually stood up for us as our good pal Senator Flanagan, the one to whom we actually donate money, tried to reverse seniority rights for NYC teachers only. (Evidently the teachers in his district don't like that sort of thing.) Cuomo opposed it because his new law was going to fire teachers. When it didn't fire enough of them, he called it "baloney" and worked on a new law.

Make no mistake, these laws are designed to fire teachers. That was Cuomo's explicit demand. UFT leadership can dance around that as much as they wish. They can cite stats of how few teachers are rated ineffective. They can ridicule those of us, like Carol Burris, Diane Ravitch, and the American Statistical Association who say these things are nonsense. But if you're a poorly rated teacher, that's cold comfort. In fact, the pressure is palpable on those of us out there doing the job, no matter how we're rated. Morale is at an all-time low and this Janus nonsense could not come at a worse moment.

In case it isn't clear, here's the thing about Andrew Cuomo--he's an opportunist who will say absolutely anything to advance himself. Cuomo supports the millionaire's tax these days but opposed it before. But perish forbid you should raise it, says Cuomo, because they'll leave New York. Snowflakes. Let them move to Utah and watch the Mormon Tabernacle Choir instead of the opera.

When Cuomo said he would go after unions, I decided not to vote for him. Of course I didn't vote for his opponent, frothing-at-the-mouth Carl Paladino. And last time I didn't vote for that creep who supported opt-out but opposed the Triborough Amendment. Both times I voted for Green Howie Hawkins. And last time in particular, I wondered how things may have been different if we'd supported brilliant, pro-teacher Zephyr Teachout in either the Working Families or Democratic primaries. We'll never know.

I think that UFT and NYSUT will endorse Cuomo next year. I think they will do that largely to come to some agreement on Janus, if such a thing is possible. But Andrew Cuomo is a despicable worm. I don't know about you, but it would take something very close to a miracle for me to support him.

Picking a Supervisor

There's a Bronx teacher contending he was passed over for promotion because of his sex. He offers evidence, and will be going to court to make his case. It will be interesting to see what happens.

I've been to many C30 meetings, at least one for almost every administrator in our very large building. That's the process under which principals and assistant principals are selected. We sign documents agreeing not to discuss about what happens in particular meetings, so I'll just discuss the process here.

Basically, a group representing the school community, consisting of teachers, parents, supervisors and a rep from DOE meet. If it's an AP, I ask someone from the department that AP will supervise to come. If it's the principal, that's a wild card. (It happened only once since I've been chapter leader, and I invited a music teacher.)

We agree on questions to ask each candidate, and come to a consensus on both that and who will ask each question. Then the candidates come, we ask the exact same questions of each candidate, and we rate their answers. We then add the scores together, and determine who scores highest, lowest and in between.

These meetings take hours. Of course it depends on how many candidates there are, and how long it takes us to conduct our business and tally scores. For an assistant principal, the principal kind of runs the meeting. For a principal, they bring in some Very Important Person from the DOE. We, the committee, make our recommendations.

After that, the principal, or the Very Important Person, takes our recommendations, and does something or other with them. I guess it would be unfair for me to say the person then just does any damn thing with them. If would be much more reasonable to say the person takes our recommendations into consideration before making a final decision.

So then, the question becomes just how fair the process is. Since we've asked all the same questions with no variation, we didn't really treat anyone differently. However, you only get to ask these questions of candidates selected by either the principal or the Very Important Person. Anyone who doesn't make that cut isn't heard at all.

The question then becomes this--does the school community truly have a voice, or is this a pro forma exercise? I suppose the only way to get a genuine answer would be to look into the soul of the principal or Very Important Person who makes the final decision. I mean, you could simply ask, but that would be a violation of the rules. You're sworn to secrecy. In any case, cynics might suggest that even principals or Very Important People might tell a fib now and then.

Of course, Lily Tomlin says no matter how cynical you get, you just can't keep up.

In the United States, we all go out and vote. After that, Donald Trump becomes President even though We, the People, chose otherwise. Here in NYC, we have a fake school board called the PEP. They get together, hold meetings, and the public gets up to speak. After that, the PEP votes any damn way the NYC Mayor says, because that's what mayoral control is. Then we have this C30, where we get together and make a choice, in full knowledge it can be roundly ignored.

It's the American way, evidently.

It's odd, though, because all the supervisors who are picked via that system are expected to follow the Danielson Rubric when rating teachers, which values student engagement pretty much above all else. Though I do not subscribe to the Danielson Rubric as used, I personally value student engagement a great deal. It's what I'm looking for every day.

It's ironic, because the system that mandates Danielson is a top-down piece of crap that contradicts virtually everything it claims to stand for. It's not coincidence that so many supervisors have no idea what their jobs entail, to wit, supporting teachers. They manage to get promoted anyway.