NYC Educator

Quest for a Union-Friendly Mayor

2013-05-18T09:13:00.001-04:00

It's good to see UFT President Michael Mulgrew talking of mayoral dictatorship. Clearly, with 8 of 13 votes on the PEP, our fake school board, what Bloomberg wants, Bloomberg gets. Of course, this was apparent when mayoral control was established in 2002. At that time, the UFT supported it, perhaps even enabling it. As if that weren't enough, we supported it again in 2009.

Now we're contemplating throwing our support to a Democratic mayoral hopeful. That, in itself, is probably a good idea, but there are serious considerations. Number one, as UFT members showed, there is a lot of distrust for Christine Quinn, the apparent frontrunner. It's tough to forget she not only supported and enabled Mayor4Life's third term, but also grabbed one for herself. How yet another self-serving brazen opportunist mayor will benefit working people in NYC is a huge mystery to me.

Then there is Bill Thompson, who seems to have gained some traction with teachers. He worked closely with the UFT before the last mayoral election. However, after the UFT failed to endorse him against Mayor4Life, he supported Bloomberg's position that all city workers except educators should get raises in the 2008-2010 round of pattern bargaining. This suggests to me that his convictions do not run deep, and that he is easily swayed by circumstance. While I'd prefer him to Quinn, I don't think he merits our support.

That leaves us with John Liu and Bill DeBlasio. I'd love to see Liu get our support. However, the pragmatic nature of UFT leadership, as exemplified by our failure to endorse against Bloombucks in 09, suggests to me that won't happen. Liu is surrounded by scandal, and the Bloomberg-loving tabloids seem to delight in smearing him, though he's yet to be personally implicated in anything whatsoever. DeBlasio has been friendly with the union, and critical of slime like Eva Moskowitz, so he may be a good bet for us.

The UFT is right that this election is important. I also hope to see a time when we aren't waiting out the mayor, as we seem to have been doing for three decades. I only wonder why it's taken us so long to recognize mayoral dictatorship. Though I'm glad Mulgrew's jumped on the bandwagon, many of us recognized this years ago.

Principal Sappenbottom and the Workshop Model

2013-05-17T05:00:00.000-04:00

by special guest blogger Curious Teacher

Assistant Principal Sappenbottom got a promotion: she was now Principal Sappenbottom. She got a raise, she got a bigger, more private office, and now she really could exercise her prerogative to do nothing as all she had to do was close the door and say she was in a meeting. She was the principal. Who was going to bother her? The students? They didn't even know who she was.

Principal Sappenbottom attended a Principal's Workshop in which she was told that the new educational model of learning was the Workshop Model. All desks now had to be arranged in groups and students worked together every day in those set groups. Ideally they would walk through different "workstations" as students progressed through the lesson.

This sounded good to Principal Sappenbottom. It was the New Thing. And so she sent out an edict that from now on, all lessons had to be based around the Workshop Model. AP's were instructed to give "U's" to teachers who didn't follow the Workshop Model.

One AP objected. He pointed out that the Workshop Model was great for some classes and lessons, but might not work every day, in every class, and particularly not in his subject. This made Principal Sappenbottom mad. She already disliked this AP and now that she was principal, who was he to question her edicts?

But this AP stuck to his refusal to "U" rate any teacher who wasn't following the Workshop Model. She got madder and madder. It was so much work, having to observe these teachers herself and "U" rate them for not following the Workshop Model if the AP wasn't willing to do it.

But Principal Sappenbottom had a creative solution. She was principal now! She could fire her AP's! So she fired this Non Workshop Model AP and put in place an AP that swore that he'd enforce the Workshop Model as strictly as possible. Old AP was out, much to the consternation of his department.

The next year, the Workshop Model was Out and replaced by The New Thing. Now the principal issued a new edict: "U" rate all teachers still using the Workshop Model and not using the New Thing. This time all the AP's complied.

What Do People Remember You For?

2013-05-16T05:00:00.000-04:00

I taught special education once. I wasn't very good at it.

After teaching for about two years, I drove across the bridge to the Bronx one September morning, only to find my services were no longer required, I decided I would look for a job in Queens, where I lived. Only when I went to the Queens hiring hall, the secretary there showed me a room full of teachers sitting in wooden chairs. She said she had to place every one of those teachers before she could help me.

Things looked bleak. I called the UFT. They told me they were sorry, there was nothing they could do, but when I got tenure I'd be glad they had this policy. Of course now that I have tenure they no longer have this policy.

Anyway I put on a suit and walked into every high school in Queens. I went to every department, and talked to anyone who would listen. Finally I found the special ed. AP of a high school who had a position she was desperate to fill. She sent me back to the hiring hall with a letter promising that I would only teach English to the special ed. students. When the secretary approved me, I went back. The AP told me I would be teaching music and math.

On the brighter side, she gave me a book of lesson plans for the math, and it was things like adding negative three to positive nine, just about my level. When we got to the Pythagorean theorem, I got a real math teacher to explain it to me. Two students complained to the math AP that I didn't do any work, and that I made them do all the problems on the board. He observed me, and gave me a great writeup. He said he wanted all his teachers to make the kids do the work.

My music classes were OK, but not great. They had a bunch of guitars in various states of repair, and they paid for some instruction books that I picked out. But I had a couple of girls in the back who never paid attention, and were constantly talking to one another. We were in a science room. I was behind a big, long black table, and the students all sat behind black tables.

One day, the girls were talking nonstop, and I was behind the big desk. I stood up on the desk, walked across the tables all the way to the back, bent down and asked the girls politely to please quiet down. Then I walked back across the tables, resumed my place, and continued as though nothing had occurred. My 12 students were fairly gobsmacked, having never seen a teacher do that before. It seemed to make an impression, because the girls never disrupted the class to that extent again.

I was in the cafeteria a few months later, and I met another teacher, who asked me my name. I told him, and he said, "Oh yeah, you're the guy who walks across the tables."

It was very odd. There were only a dozen kids in that class, and no adults. Yet word got around.

A few months later, I grabbed a job at another school, teaching ESL. 25 years later, I'm still doing it. I don't walk across tables anymore, but I may be known for even worse things. You never know until people tell you.

AP Sapenbottom and the Creative Solution

2013-05-15T05:00:00.000-04:00

by special guest blogger Curious Teacher

Assistant Principal Ms. Sapenbottom was irked. She was in her office and tired, and trying to take her afternoon power nap. But teachers kept coming in to make copies. She sighed. She made faces. She angrily stomped out to the bathroom and came back and said pointedly, "Can you guys hurry up?" Finally the teachers were done with their xeroxing, and Ms. Sapenbottom was free to take her nap.

Except this kept happening over and over again. Teachers came in to make copies when Ms. Sapenbottom was busy arranging a new addition to her kitchen. They came in to make copies when Ms. Sapenbottom was busy napping. They came in to make copies when Ms. Sapenbottom was busy exercising her prerogative to do nothing. She felt attacked -- she knew that they were all saying whispering behind her back that she was lazy. Sometimes she felt that the teachers purposely made copies when they knew Ms. Sapenbottom most needed her power nap or her "nothing time." Things were escalating.

Finally Ms. Sapenbottom had enough. "The Xerox machine is being moved down the hall," she announced. And so it was moved. But there was a new problem. What would happen when Ms. Sapenbottom wanted to make copies herself? She had the sketches of her new kitchen addition to photocopy. Walking down the hall to make copies was just SO MUCH WORK. So Ms. Sapenbottom ordered the machine moved back into her office.

But then the teachers started bothering her during nap time again, and Ms. Sapenbottom remembered why she had the machine moved down the hall in the first place. Things were at an impasse. What to do?

Ms. Sapenbottom had a genius idea. She started to bake cookies and brought them down to the principal's office. While she ate cookies in the principal's office she whined about her need for her OWN copy machine. The cookies must have been yummy, because a few weeks later the teachers noticed a brand new xerox machine in Ms. Sapenbottom's office, along with the old xerox machine now moved permanently down the hall. And so the teachers could make copies and Ms. Sapenbottom could nap in peace.

It was the best solution for everybody.

Principal Suit and the Chapter Leader

2013-05-14T05:00:00.000-04:00

Principal Suit was busy, in his office, doing Very Important Work, when his secretary knocked on the door and asked if he could see Susan, the chapter leader. He didn't really want to, but he thought if there was some problem, it might be best to nip it in the bud. So he agreed.

"Mr. Suit," she said, "Did you read the observation report that Ms. Sim wrote about Ms. Whitman?"

"No, I didn't."

"As you know, Ms. Whitman has been teaching for 38 years. She's never gotten a bad observation report. In fact, she hasn't been observed in 15 years. But anyway, considering you named her teacher of the year just last year, it might not look so good if she were to get such an awful observation."

"I'm very surprised," he said. "Ms. Whitman has been very helpful around the office."

In fact, Ms. Whitman had written just about every observation report that came from Principal Suit's office. He could just hand her a bunch of notes, and a half-hour later she'd have a full report ready. She did a much better job than his secretary, who could barely read his handwriting. He would have to nip this in the bud.

"I'm sure Ms. Whitman is an excellent teacher," he said. "Let's just forget about that observation report. Tell her she doesn't have to sign it and it won't go in her file. I will speak with Ms. Sim."

"Thank you very much, Mr. Suit," she said, smiling and leaving.

This was an interesting development. It appeared the English AP was trying to make his life difficult. Well, we'll just see about that. This was something that had to be nipped in the bud.

In fact, now that he thought about it, Ms. Sim was probably the rat who'd been leaking info from his top-secret cabinet meetings. She would have to be dealt with. It was time to open a double top-secret file. Also, he would place a copy of everything from the double top-secret file into Ms. Sim's file, because if Susan could block his double top-secret files from being used against teachers, someone could possibly block double top-secret things from going into Ms. Sim's file too.

Observation Report

2013-05-13T05:00:00.000-04:00

Dear Ms. Whitman:

On May 9th, I observed your second period ESL class. Your aim was "How Can We Apologize For Our Mistakes?" 21 students were present as the class commenced.

You opened the class by asking who had to go to the bathroom, and listed the names of five students on the board. While you were writing the names, the student in front of me took two wet paper towels and threw them at the blackboard, where they stuck, making a very loud "plop" sound. You appeared not to hear this and continued to elicit names of students who needed to go to the bathroom.

As I confronted the student who threw the papers and wrote a dean's referral, you proceeded to take attendance. Though the students alternately raised their hands or called out, "here," you insisted they stand and say "present." This resulted in several confrontations and two students actually walking out of the classroom. Both times, when I walked out and brought the students back to class, I found you still reading names of students. You did not appear to notice that the students or I had exited your class, or that we had entered again. However, as ten latecomers arrived, you saw them clearly and asked them individually whether or not they needed to go to the bathroom.

Twenty minutes into the period, you got into a loud argument with one student who did not wish to say "present." You then threatened to send the student to my office, which would not have proven an effective remedy, as I happened to be in your classroom at that very moment. I went over and spoke to the student, who finally stood up and said "present." You then demanded an apology from the student, who appeared not to understand what you meant.

At that point, one of your students returned from the bathroom, you crossed her name off your list on the board, and called on the next student on your list. That student replied he no longer needed to go to the bathroom, and you asked if there were any student who wished to take his place. Three students raised their hands, and you wrote their names in place of the student who no longer wished to go to the bathroom. This caused loud protests from the students whose names fell under that students name, and they demanded their names be placed above his name. There was much discussion until I stood up and told the students that there was now only ten minutes remaining in the class, that the bathrooms were now locked, and that there would be no more trips to the bathroom.

You then began your lesson, saying that when you did something wrong, it was a good idea to say, "I'm sorry."

Several students then called out loudly, "Sorry is garbage!"

You asked what they meant by that.

"Mr. Finch says sorry is garbage, and that we should just do our work without it."

"Mr. Finch must be joking with you," you replied.

Several students called out that Mr. Finch was a serious guy, that he didn't like jokes, and that he had repeatedly told them that. At this point the bell rang and your students ran from the room. This lesson was unsatisfactory.

Positive aspects of lesson:

It is certainly appropriate that students say they are sorry.

Suggestions for improvement:

In our post-observation conference, I suggested you give a DO NOW assignment, and take attendance while students were occupied with it. I also suggested you refrain from inviting students to the bathroom, that you wait for them to ask you.

I was going to discuss lesson planning and curriculum with you, but you pointed out that you stayed after school every day doing typing for Principal Suit, that he had made you Teacher of the Year last year, and that no one had criticized your practice over your 38-year career. You claimed that you had a VAM rating of 96% and were certainly the very best teacher in the school. You then walked out of my office, slammed the door, and the glass broke all over the floor.

I am requesting that you submit lesson plans to me every Friday so that we may discuss them, and so that I will be able to grant you a satisfactory rating at year's end.

Sincerely,

Eleanor Sim, AP, English

Principal Suit Deals With His Bad Rating

2013-05-12T11:15:00.001-04:00

The faculty had been polled by the DOE, and they overwhelmingly declared they had little confidence in him. How could this happen? Didn't he wear a tie every day? Didn't he observe their classes and tell them every little thing he could find wrong with them? Didn't he offer them severe looks when he couldn't decide what to actually say about them? And didn't he make sure they actively engaged in his crucial anti-bullying initiative?

There could be only one answer. It was Susan, the UFT Chapter Leader. She had poisoned the staff's minds with her vitriol. Wasn't it she who persuaded him not to give a U-rating to that upstart librarian, after she had the effrontery to challenge his taking a reference book out? After all that he had done for her, the ingratitude! Why did he let her scream at him like that? Why didn't he just nip it in the bud? Nip it! That's what he should have done! And yet, with her in his face like that, it was so hard to speak.

He hastily called a cabinet meeting, to discuss her undue influence and what could be done about it. The English AP, whom he had never liked, suggested his popularity had waned when he placed multiple letters in files about the failure to enforce the anti-bullying campaign. She brought up that damn To Kill a Mockingbird again, and had the audacity to repeat the notion that the book actually addressed bullying. It was time to nip it in the bud! Nip, and nip now!

First of all, we're talking about bullying, he told her. How on earth can we do that if we're promoting books about killing innocent animals? It's our job to protect the innocent! How can we do that if we're teaching our children stories about killing cute little birdies?

The English AP, for once, was speechless. It was about time he put her in her place. He had done it. It was nipped!

And yet, the following day, Susan barged into his office and went off on a rant about how he had no right to blame her for his bad rating. This was unacceptable. There was a rat in his cabinet. He could trust no one. How could he nip this in the bud? And in fact, if Susan had a secret informer, wasn't it already out of the bud? How, then, could it be effectively nipped?

He searched his mind for a suitable comeback, but found none. He thought of giving the wayward librarian a bad rating anyway, but then there would be Susan, screaming at him again, and things would be so far out of the bud there would be no nipping them at all. The only thing to do would be to undermine her awesome and inexplicable power over the staff. But how?

This would take some serious thought and preparation. He steeled himself for a long and arduous battle.

Principal Suit and the Librarian

2013-05-10T20:13:00.001-04:00

Principal Suit was in his office doing Very Important Work when all of a sudden he realized he needed some important information. The only way to get this information, he determined, would be to get the book that contained it. Where could he get a book, he mused, when all of a sudden it hit him like a shot. The library! There were lots of books in the library, and it was just upstairs.

However, going upstairs would mean moving from the chair, which fit him so well after all those years sitting on it, so he called a student monitor. The student monitor was excited to be of service, and dutifully took the paper with the name of the book up to the library.

The librarian looked at the book title and said, "I'm sorry, but this book is in reference. You can't take it out of the library."

"But it's for Principal Suit," protested the monitor.

"Rules are rules," said the librarian, and began to arrange things behind her desk.

Principal Suit could not believe the news when the monitor gave it to him. We'll see about that, he thought, and personally marched up to the library. He looked around and decided he liked what they'd done with the place, but would withhold any compliments until this matter was dealt with.

"Excuse me," he said to the librarian.

"Yes, Mr. Suit," she replied.

"I sent a monitor to get a book, and you didn't give it to him."

"That's right. It's a reference book, and reference books do not leave the library."

"But I need it."

"Well then you'll have to look at it here."

This was too much. He played his trump card. "But I am the principal. I need this book to do work, and I need to do the work in my office!"

"Well, Mr. Suit, if you insist on doing things this way, I will need a note, written and signed by you, that you took the book out against my admonition."

Principal Suit was dumbfounded. No one talked to him like that. No one. What was the point of being principal if people were going to talk to you like that?

He took one more look at the librarian, her arms folded in defiance.

Then he wrote the note, signed it, and she gave him the book.

Reformy John and the Magic Mirror

2013-05-08T18:20:00.003-04:00

Every day Reformy John King peered into his magic mirror and asked, "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the reformiest one of all?"

Inevitably the mirror would answer, "You're reformy, this I like, but reformier still is Emperor Mike."

Reformy John was sad. What can I do to be as reformy as Emperor Mike, he wondered. And furthermore, does an emperor outrank a king? Despite these engrossing ruminations, every morning it was the same.

"Reformy yes, this you can do, but Mike's reformier than you."

Curses!

Then one day, the evil UFT Guild got into the act. They said they too would get reformy, but only if they could collectively negotiate exactly how reformy they could be. They met with Emperor Mike, who cried, "Not reformy enough!" and sent them on their way. But Genghis Cuomo from the North was displeased, and told the UFT Guild that they would get reformier or he would take all the ice cream away from the little children in the UFT Guild's village.

"Fie on you," said Sir Mulgrew of the UFT Guild to Genghis Cuomo. True to his word, Genghis Cuomo blocked delivery of 240 million bucks worth of ice cream. The village children were deeply saddened, and Baron Rupert of Murdockistan dispatched town criers throughout the land to call the UFT Guild a bunch of swine, and to further declare that Sir Mulgrew did not want the children to have any more ice cream.

Reformy people everywhere were displeased. Who could help them? Genghis Cuomo decreed that both the UFT Guild and Emperor Mike could issue plans on how to get reformy. And then, Genghis Cuomo decreed that Reformy John could pick the plan that suited him best. And the reformy people rejoiced.

And thus, Reformy John decreed that Emperor Mike's plan was the reformiest ever, and made it the law of the land.

That night, Reformy John peered into his magic mirror, and asked, "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the reformiest one of all?"

The mirror paused for a second, looked Reformy John in the eye, and answered, "You are one reformy Dude, the UFT Guild's surely screwed. Term limits mean Mike's hit a wall, and you're reformiest of all."

And all the people lived happily ever after. Except the UFT Guild, the village students, and anyone else who faced the prospect of working for a living.

The Unity Hammer

2013-05-07T16:35:00.002-04:00

Chapter Leader was surprised. He got an email from his principal about placing a teacher center in his school. The principal forwarded him a letter from the UFT, expressing interest in the proposal. But Chapter Leader had never seen the proposal. He shot an email to the principal saying he was very surprised the UFT had taken any proposal from him without consulting with the chapter, and CCd it to a bunch of people in the UFT.

That night he got a call.

"Why didn't you reach out to us?"

"I did. I sent you a copy of my email."

"Yes, but you sent it to the principal too. You EMBARRASSED us."

"Sorry, I didn't mean to do that."

"This was a BAD idea. We keep UFT matters within the UFT. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?"

"I was just trying to point out..."

It's NOT your job to POINT things OUT." Got me?"

"Yes, I was just..."

"DON'T tell me that. Do you want to go to the convention in California next summer?"

"I wasn't really thinking about it."

"ANSWER my question. DO YOU WANT to go to the convention in California next summer?"

"Well, yes, I..."

"Then you will NEVER do anything like this AGAIN. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?"

"Yes, I do."

"Now this was the wrong thing to do. You MUST agree. You MUST agree with this. Do you understand? You MUST agree."

"I do."

"Now this will NEVER happen again. You will go and apply for the teacher center in your school, and you will act like you REALLY want it. But if you don't get it, you will NOT raise a fuss. IS THAT UNDERSTOOD?"

"Yes."

And from that day on, he was a good Chapter Leader. Though his school did not get the teacher center, he went to all the conventions, had big fun, and never, ever complained about another thing, not to the union, not to the principal, not to anyone.

Was Cathie Black a Victim of Sexism?

2013-05-06T17:35:00.002-04:00

With the release of the Cathie Black emails, I'm reading a lot of speculation on how attacks against her were sexist. After all, she is a woman. We didn't know a whole lot more about her at the time of her nomination, other than the fact she had virtually no educational experience, a big plus for Mayor Bloombucks, who apparently met her at the Rich Folks Galas they sipped champagne at.

And yet, many spoke of what a brilliant choice it was at the time. Well, hindsight is 20/20, and even the NY Post, which initially adored her, has pretty much come around to saying what those of us who were not insane were saying at the time. So were we sexist?

Well, she did come across as a blithering ignoramus. However, that's not entirely her fault. After all, she knew nothing whatsoever about the job she'd taken. So why was anyone surprised when she looked like a deer in the headlights or blurted out inanities? It was very much to be expected.

And yet, Joel Klein did not have similar issues. Sure, he knew nothing about education. Sure, he made many an inane utterance. And yet, the papers loved him. He blathered on about theories that had no basis in reality, about untested notions, about things that had never worked anywhere, and the city editorial boards said, yeah, Joel, go for it!

Nonetheless, anyone reading this blog at the time saw stories of how nonsensical and ridiculous his ideas were. Anyone reading Leonie Haimson or Diane Ravitch read much the same.

So I'm going to say yes, Clueless Cathie was indeed a victim of sexism. When she suggested birth control as a means to reduce class size, there was outrage at the abject stupidity of the comment. Yet when Joel Klein said much the same thing, I don't think I heard about it--until some blogger somewhere pointed out he'd said the same thing Black did.

The papers were sexist in going after her but not Klein. Klein, you'll recall, was on board to praise Mayor Mike for the miraculous boost in NYS test scores, the ones Bloomberg based his third term on. Diane Ravitch examined them next to the NAEP scores and determined the state scores must have been dumbed down. Just a year later, the papers discovered Ravitch's claims to be correct.

So there is some sexism there. Klein was clearly as incompetent and clueless as Black, but has never really been nailed for it in the press. And make no mistake, if there is any sexism, it comes from the press.

I don't feel all that sorry for Cathie Black. But I wonder, is it easier to be a blitheringly incompetent man than a blitheringly incompetent woman in the United States nowadays?

Letter to File

2013-05-05T10:55:00.002-04:00

Dear Ms. Teacher:

On May 1st, I met with you and UFT Chapter Leader Sleepy McBraindead in my office. We discussed your failure to offer mandated anti-bullying instruction on your class. You admitted openly flaunting a direct order from me to teach anti-bullying. You claimed that anti-bullying lessons were implicit in your instruction of To Kill a Mockingbird.

I directly instructed you not to teach this novel, and to focus more on Common Core non-fiction pieces. I suggested Pearson's The History of Cement and 100 Tedious Essays that No One Wishes to Read, but you persisted in teaching the novel, calling it "classic" and "indispensable."

As principal, I determine what is classic and indispensable, and it's your job to promote my directives with sincere enthusiasm and without question. This is the only way we can promote the free and open discussion that is required in the Danielson framework that we will be implementing during the next school year whether you like it or not.

I have determined that what our students need is direct instruction in our schoolwide anti-bullying campaign. Furthermore, I've instructed you that essays on how students feel about literature is not only unacceptable, but also impractical in terms of what our students can expect in the workplace. For example, have I ever once asked you or any faculty members about their feelings on anything whatsoever?

We are involved in very serious matters here. The chancellor and mayor have decided that bullying is now unacceptable, and that we must fight it at all costs. It is therefore imperative that you focus your students on this matter. It is unacceptable that you continue to teach things that will not help our students in their careers, or help them pass Common Core exams, and I will not tolerate your abject refusal to participate in vital schoolwide initiatives.

The next time I visit your classroom, I would like to see evidence that your students have been instructed in anti-bullying. Such evidence may include, but not be limited to:

1. Compositions on the bulletin board that oppose bullying.

2. Spontaneous conversation from students opposing bullying.

3. Student behavior that indicates they oppose bullying, or

4. A mini-lesson on why you yourself are opposed to bullying that inspires student to student feedback on anti-bullying.

Be advised that failure to promote anti-bullying will result in more stringent disciplinary measures, including but not limited to an unsatisfactory rating, gratuitous, frequent and highly disruptive observations by large groups of chattering observers, suspension with or without pay, and/ or dismissal.

Sincerely,

29-Year-Old Principal
Leadership Academy

The SBO--Make Them an Offer They Can Easily Refuse

2013-05-03T18:14:00.002-04:00

Last week, Ms. Teacher went to work, and noticed there was a ballot box in the check-in room. She had no idea there was going to be a vote, and neither did any of her colleagues. But there it was, and she was handed a ballot.

There was an SBO, a proposal to increase the school day, already six hours and fifty minutes, by 37 minutes Monday to Thursday. Ms. Teacher saw nothing about getting paid for the extra time. Then she heard some of her colleagues screaming about it in distinctly uncomplimentary terms. The consensus was that this was nuts, and why would anyone want to do such a thing?

Ms. Teacher located her chapter leader, who told her the District Representative wanted this SBO. Now, to me, that's pretty hard to believe, but I suppose if I were pushing such a crappy idea, I'd blame the DR, or pretty much anyone handy. You could always blame the mayor, I suppose. Here's the thing, though--an SBO vote is theoretically a partnership between the principal and the chapter leader. Nothing can even come to a vote without the chapter leader's OK.

It was a stressful day for Ms. Teacher. She's kind of sensitive, and doesn't like too much controversy. And yet, there it was. All day, everyone was shouting at one another. They weren't really mad at each other, but rather agitated that anyone would have the audacity to offer such a crappy idea.

At the end of the day, there were over a hundred votes against the SBO, and only one in favor. Ms. Teacher suspects it was the chapter leader, as does everyone else. But Ms. Teacher isn't the sort of person to confront the chapter leader with that.

However, she is the sort who votes every chance she gets, unlike 83% of working NYC teachers.

What Can an Opposition Caucus Win?

2013-05-01T20:56:00.002-04:00

A comment from Norm Scott on one of my recent posts has been rattling around in my head lately, and it really bears a little more attention:

34,000 elem school teachers get only 11 Ex bd seats, 11,000 middle school tchrs get 5 EB and 19000 HS teachers get 7 EB seats for a total of 23 out of 101 eb seats.

This means if an opposition caucus were to win all the divisions, high school, middle school, and elementary school, under UFT rules, they'd have less than a quarter of the seats on the UFT Executive Board. As high school, middle school, and elementary school VPs are all elected "at large," none of these divisions would be led by their actual selections.

With retirees controlling more than half of the votes, it would be almost impossible for working teachers to trump their control. So while I wrote a parody piece last week declaring us the United Federation of Retired Teachers, it appears that's already pretty much the case.

So I'm appending one more thing I'd like to see from a social justice union, and that is representative democracy.

The prime purpose of union is to represent the interests of its members. The way our election rules are set up, it appears the prime purpose of the election is to maintain control of the dominant caucus.

That's unconscionable, and I can certainly understand the cynicism that keeps the vote down when I contemplate such an absurd system. I can't help but vote every chance I get, but I can understand why a lot of members might see it as a futile act.

What Is Social Justice?

2013-04-30T15:50:00.002-04:00

I think MORE, if it wants to prominently label itself the "Social Justice Caucus," might benefit from telling us what that means. Perhaps they already have, and if someone will point out where, I'd be happy to acknowledge it on this page. The name seems to have frightened some people on my pal Chaz's blog, and it's drawn comments suggesting that MORE may take a public position on the Israeli-Palestinian controversy. Personally, I've seen no evidence they have, or will.

A problem with that label, in my view, is that it fails to differentiate MORE from the opposition--unless they explain themselves well. Whatever I may think about Unity-New Action, I have no reason to find they discriminate based on race, religion, age, or anything like that. As far as that goes, I fully support them. On its surface, social justice sounds great to me. I have no problem with it at all. Social justice, though, has to entail more than just lack of discrimination.

I don't speak for MORE, but I'm fairly certain they'd agree it's not remotely social justice to close schools. Schools are community centers and ought to belong to the communities they serve. I live in Freeport, NY, and when we were hit by Sandy we regularly held meetings in our schools. In fact, we actually have a recreation center which now serves as a contact center for FEMA. Social justice, to me, suggests more community involvement, and getting folks like Bloomberg and his BFF hedge-fund pals the hell out of neighborhoods.

Social justice suggests we should be proactive about helping the kids we serve, rather than simply testing them to death. It suggests we not judge our students simply by the grades they get. It suggests we look further into why they are getting such grades. In fact, the world doesn't need an entire society focused on academics. If kids don't like this sort of thing, and have talent for plumbing, carpentry, or whatever, we ought to be helping them into careers. If we're judging by test scores, we might as well judge by salary, and my plumber makes a lot more money than I ever will.

It suggests we seek out root causes for failure and yes, that we somehow push our society toward dealing with poverty, if that's what causes it. In fact, many teachers already do such things but are being moved away from them because of the ridiculous focus on test scores. How is it the teacher's fault if kids have an unstable home life, or no home at all? How is it the teacher's fault if kids have not yet learned English? Again, we need to look at kids as something more than test scores.

Social justice suggests we vehemently oppose things like mayoral control. Having a fake school board controlled by the richest man in New York is undemocratic and unacceptable. A union that believed in real social justice could not possibly support such a thing. Social justice suggests we support democracy, and oppose top-down mandates not only from our government, but from our union as well.

Also, if we are to have social justice, we must oppose teachers being judged by value-added, which is nothing more than junk science. It's unacceptable for working teachers to be evaluated for factors over which they have little or no control. It means due process for working teachers and working people, something I believe will be strongly diluted under the nonsensical new evaluation scheme.

Social justice means we do not write laws enabling such nonsense. It means we take care of all our members, fight school closings, and do not allow capable working teachers to fall into the awful Absent Teacher Reserve. It means we place each and every teacher in the ATR before we hire a single new teacher.

It means we care for the kids it is our honor to teach, and treat them with respect. It means we show them how to do the same for others. It means using common sense (which I realize is the least common of all the senses). It means an awful lot of things.

And frankly, I can't think of a single one of them that involves radical politics. Unless you consider caring for our fellow human beings to be radical. If you do, you probably shouldn't be teaching.

Because that, to a very large extent, happens to be our job.

Update: Mike Schirtzer from more says their vision of social justice is laid out here.

How Do We Engage the Apathetic 75%?

2013-04-29T16:29:00.001-04:00

It's humiliating that 52% of the union vote came from retirees. That we cannot muster more than one of four working teachers to take an interest in who runs our union is on us too. Retirees are certainly important, and I hope to become one someday.

Retirees should be represented, and are, with their own chapter. Should the union have a Florida office? If we've got a huge percentage of retirees in Florida, why not? But here's a fact--retirees have different interests than working teachers. Should retirees be voting on who's the VP for high schools? VP for Elementary? Middle School? Absolutely not.

Yet they do. Only high school teachers should vote for high school VP, and so on. It's insane that we are required to let teachers from other levels help us. It's just as insane that retirees get a say. Why on earth shouldn't they get their own VP, and select him or her by themselves?

Working teachers should select their own reps, and frankly, anything otherwise is an affront against democracy. Functional chapters? What's a functional? Secretaries should select a secretary rep. Guidance counselors should select a guidance rep. Social workers, nurses, and anyone should pick their own reps. Why are so many on the UFT Executive Board "at large?" What the hell does that even mean?

Let's have real representation. Let's have everyone represented by people who actually represent their interests. Let's have an executive board that represents the UFT, not the caucuses.

Let's let schools decide who goes to conventions, and not caucuses. And let's see proportional representation. A school with 12 teachers may merit less representation than one with 250.

Retirees ought to select a portion of the Executive Board, a representative for themselves, and help select the UFT President. But their vote for President ought not to outweigh the votes of working teachers, who are facing incredible challenges right now. The system we have now is neither democratic nor rational.

I'm sorry if it's inconvenient for Unity-New Action to entertain other voices. It's high time they learned to do so anyway. Trotting out a fake opposition to mislead the members is disgraceful. Pandering to retirees when the opposition cannot even make a case to them is unconscionable. And the resultant apathy, cynicism, and that three out of four working educators can't be bothered to write an X in a box is just awful.

We can do better, or we can maintain the patronage mill until it shatters under its own weight.

I vote for the former.

Correction: A commenter points out that 83% of working teachers did not vote.

Unity Loyalty

2013-04-28T18:57:00.002-04:00

There's a thread on Gotham Schools that's interesting not so much for its content, that Mulgrew won, but rather for its comment thread. Particularly interesting is the Unity fan, one "Les Vegas." Les has strong opinions about MORE.

...you were running a slate of unqualified candidates, several with radical practices.

This is a theme that comes up whenever anyone has the temerity to oppose the Unity stranglehold on power. They're unqualified and incapable. I remember Unity calling New Action, "No Action" back in the eighties when NA was really an opposition caucus. Of course, no one will ever be qualified to run the UFT but Unity, because we, lowly teachers, apparently know nothing. Then, of course, Les drops the bomb:

Not your two Socialist organizers.

Oh my goodness! Socialists! In a union! They might support subversive practices. Like trade unions, for example. Socialist is a loser of a label in the United States, which is why our corporatist President is repeatedly called one. But Republicans and Democrats have been pretty awful to teacher unions lately, and I'm much more worried about them lately. I mean, I've yet to see a "Socialists for Educational Reform" group. In fact, it's most recently the GOP opposing Common Core, though likely only because Obama supports it. Les continues:

Not your several high school "I'm an intellectual" bloggers.

That could be me, for all I know. I'm part of no caucus, and was not on the UFT ballot, but I am a blogger. While I don't much care whether or not people find me intellectual, I'm a little concerned about people who attack teachers for the offense of thinking. And with Unity supporting value-added and mayoral control (twice), what this union needs is more thought, not less. A well-informed union would not welcome working teachers being judged by junk science.

It's true you don't see many Unity bloggers. In fact, Unity members have signed a pledge to support all Unity positions in public, and question Unity policy only within the caucus. There is zero chance they would substantively dissent from the party line. Were they to do that, it's no more free trips to conventions, and no shot at the Holy Grail, a gig working for the union.

What surprises me most about Les, who calls people names, who gleefully tries to out another commenter without revealing his own identity, is this:

...someday I should write the detailed story that my girlfriend shared with me. She's the chapter leader at our school in Queens.

I don't know anyone who's passionate about Unity who isn't working for them. I know someone related to a Unity big shot who will do little things for them. Anyway, it's possible this Les simply has a girlfriend working for Unity. But I doubt it. For someone to repeatedly attack people on multiple blogs, there's got to be an incentive. For someone to defend almost five years without a raise, there's got to be a reason. For someone to support the new evaluation system, which Mulgrew says will cost 7% of teachers poor evaluations, there must be a personal stake.

Most chapter leaders are Unity, and it's entirely possible they persuade people to vote for them and their slate. But those who passionately defend it all over the place are, at the very least, planning a free trip to California next summer. That's the very bottom rung of the Unity gravy train.

Some people like these people, and that's how they become chapter leaders. Or perhaps they're the only people in their school crazy enough to want the jobs. But regardless, all these Unity chapter leaders were unable to rouse more than 25% of membership to even vote.

Most working teachers simply don't give a damn, or have given up and don't think filling in a box is worth their time. MORE failed to sufficiently get the word out, and while that's unfortunate, there's only so much a brand new caucus can do. They made a strong showing in the high schools, and if I were Unity, I'd be very nervous. They also managed to kick New Action's sorry ass all over the place, and that's an achievement.

If New Action were smart, they'd join MORE, reclaim their independence, and genuinely win seats in the next election. Of course, it's my understanding that their most prominent member has a 15K part-time gig over at 52 Broadway, and things like that ensure continued loyalty. That's the sort of thing that makes chapter leaders applaud Bill Gates.

But here is the bottom line--no one who is not receiving something from Unity is passionate about it.

No one.

And that, my friends, is an epic fail, election or no.

The United Federation of Retired Teachers

2013-04-26T21:49:00.002-04:00

BREAKING--Today I was at 52 Broadway conducting business, and I ran into a particularly loquacious union rep, who shall remain unnamed. We discussed the UFT election, and he confided union leadership's plan for the future. I surreptitiously recorded the whole thing on my iPhone.

"As you know, 53% of our voters were retirees. Some people criticize us for that, but the fact is, these are reliable votes for Unity. As we move into our fifth year without a raise in salary, an evaluation system under which teachers will be judged by junk science, and a second decade of mayoral control, we're a little nervous.

This year, MORE came within 160 votes of unseating our high school Executive Board, and if we hadn't bought out New Action, we might actually have to deal with those radical punk socialist commie hippie pinko weirdos. In fact, MORE and New Action combined got more votes than Unity. If New Action ever decided to be a real opposition, the high school teachers would really be trouble for us.

We'd thought we were finally able to take care of those high school teachers by making VP elections open to all. Now, someone like the old Mike Shulman will never get in again. But we really need to protect these seats. We thought buying off Shulman and New Action would make that happen. We really don't like those guys all that much, but when we need our cars washed, or someone to go out for coffee, they come in handy. Where was I?

Oh yes, the high school teachers. We can't let them make the wrong decisions, so what we are going to do is limit future votes to retirees. The thing about retirees is they aren't prejudiced. If we do something like support mayoral control, they're not all over the place screaming about how unfair Bloomberg is. They're sitting on a beach in Boca, sipping on a UFT pina-colada, and leisurely walking over to the lunch buffet, where they're greeted by the UFT President. You will never see Julie Cavanagh pressing the flesh in Boca because she's off somewhere teaching every day. And honestly, teachers have a pretty skewed view of what goes on.

Sure, Mulgrew has said 7% of working teachers will be rated ineffective under the new system. Now there was just an article in the NY Times saying only 2% of teachers in Florida were rated poorly. Now we're starting to get phone calls from teachers asking us why, if the law we negotiated is so much better than those around the country, will their failure rate be 350% higher. I mean, who the hell do these people think they are, asking us these questions? Why can't they focus on the 93% who won't be rated ineffective?

Also, I'm pretty tired of hearing about how every city union except us got 8% in the last round of pattern bargaining, and how we agreed to the new evaluation system without negotiating a contract. Picky, picky, picky. Why aren't they talking about our SESIS victory? We keep writing about it in NY Teacher and no one seems to notice.

That's why we're going to have the DA, the highest decision-making body of the UFT, vote on making retirees only select union officers. The new UFRT will be better than ever, because Unity-New Action will win every election, forever. Who cares if James Eterno gets up and cites Robert's Rules? We haven't yet figured out how to stop teachers from voting for chapter leaders who insist there are two sides to arguments. But we can certainly make sure they have no say in who runs the union, and once we do that, we can figure out how to get these people to shut the hell up, as well they should.

This is very hush-hush. We in union like to keep this stuff in house--you know, what happens at 52 Broadway stays at 52 Broadway. I'd hate to read about this on the blogs before we have all our ducks in a row."

Invasion of the Talent Coaches

2013-04-25T16:12:00.000-04:00

I'm hearing stories all over about the DOE's agents doing practice observations with administrators. Armed with their adapted Danielson rubrics, with the three domains they have determined are inevitable, they do 15-minute observations. During these 15 minutes, they determine whether teachers are highly effective, effective, developing, or ineffective. The fact that the evaluation system does not yet exist deters them not at all. The fix is in, they figure, and Reformy John (King) will grant them whatever they ask.

So teachers even principals think are great get rated developing because they went seven and a half full minutes without having students turn and talk. Some of them used the much-praised workshop model, gave a mini-lesson, and because the talent coaches neither saw nor cared what followed, they just didn't hit the mark.

Another problem is lesson plans. Article 8E of the UFT Contract reads as follows:

The development of lesson plans by and for the use of the teacher is a professional responsibility vital to effective teaching. The organization, format, notation and other physical aspects of the lesson plan are appropriately within the discretion of each teacher. A principal or supervisor may suggest, but not require, a particular format or organization, except as part of a program to improve deficiencies of teachers who receive U-ratings or formal warnings.

You'd think that meant teachers had wide latitude over how they planned their lessons. But the DOE knows better. Your plan is to be rated separately from your lesson. I understand that kids say and do really interesting things, and I will let them steer my lessons into interesting places. I love when that happens. Of course, I'm not (yet) teaching a course that culminates in a Common Core exam that will determine whether or not I get to keep my job. I'd certainly view things differently if I were, and my lessons would certainly suffer for it.

However, were I a supervisor seeing good things going on, I would not waste my time demanding a plan. I would say, "I loved this class," write it up if appropriate, and be on my merry way. But under the paradigm I'm observing, a teacher could give a great lesson and still be criticized for a crappy plan. That strikes me as idiotic, but I didn't write the rubric. In fact, I haven't examined it against Danielson's original, so I have no idea.

I'm hearing that the three domains the DOE is using were accepted by the UFT for the pilot program that took place in the "turnaround" schools. As we all know, that pilot was an abysmal failure and ended up with lawsuits forbidding Bloomberg to defy laws and close the schools. I have no idea whether or not UFT leadership is still favoring these domains. Nor does the DOE.

I know there is much within this junk science VAM plan to be negotiated. I also know that no negotiations are taking place. So it's entirely likely Bloomberg's DOE is betting Reformy John will side with them and back whatever vindictive baseless plan that will help achieve the goal of firing as many teachers as possible.

On the positive side, it will now take two years to fire a teacher. So if you're a new teacher, and you happen to be the worst teacher that ever walked the earth, you get a second year with a validator to decide whether or not you indeed suck as badly as reputed. Unfortunately, if you're a vet, and you don't shine during your 15 minutes of fame, the validator could decide you are no good either.

Now it's possible a validator will be able to determine who is and is not a good teacher. It's also possible the validator could enter with the DOE rubric/hit list and say you stink. That will be bad for a tenured teacher, who will then face the largely impossible burden of proving competence. In the past, at 3020a hearings, the DOE needed to prove the teacher was incompetent. This will now be the case only when the validator determines the teacher is OK.

But take heart. Though Walcott routinely rubber-stamps adverse ratings, the UFT has negotiated that 13% of said ratings will go to an independent arbitrator for a fair hearing. The other 87% will go to a biased arbitrator for an unfair hearing.

That's fair, isn't it? After all, the only thing at stake is your livelihood.

Reclaiming Our Precious Nouns

2013-04-24T17:54:00.001-04:00

Michael Fiorillo wrote a great piece about the "choices" city residents have for their kids. The corporate geniuses who make all the decisions about education have determined, since vouchers have never been popular anywhere, to get into the charter business. Of course, by the sole criterion with which they are measured, test scores, they aren't really any better than the neighborhood schools they displace.

But everyone wants Choice. You can go to the neighborhood school, if they haven't closed it yet, and if it isn't drained of space and resources you may do OK there. Of course, there could be three or four small schools, or maybe a Moskowitz charter, and you may feel like a second-class citizen as the Moskowitz school gets refurbished and yours doesn't. And, of course, the Moskowitz school doesn't take all those inconvenient special education and ESL students, and they oppose any bill compelling them to take a mix that reflects the neighborhood. Better to dump them on the neighborhood school, watch their test scores plummet, then take it over when it gets closed.

Still, I wouldn't send my kid to a charter on a bet. I've seen films by Doug Lemov showing the regimented nature of schools he finds excellent, watched the teacher pass out paper so quickly that not one moment of instruction was lost, watched kids marching quietly from one place to another, and saw no joy, no inspiration, nothing I want my kid to be part of. For me, of course, Choice would be sending my kid where Bloomberg's, Klein's, King's, or Obama's kids go.

So there's no Choice for us. And now, there's no excellence either. Excellence has become the province of the reformy, hence Educators for Excellence, and now Parents for Excellent Schools, funded by the fine folks who brought you Walmart. Of course, there's a whole lot of hoopla about how these are grassroots groups, and a whole lot of talk about how they are independent, but it's crystal clear what their agenda is:

The group’s top priorities are school choice, teacher evaluations, and ensuring that charter schools have access to public space.

Just like the faux-teacher grassroots group that preceded it, they just happen to follow exactly what Bill Gates wishes them to. So, the second word they've usurped is "excellence." Evidently, those who oppose "choice," junk-science evaluations, and the degradation of neighborhood schools are opposed to excellence.

One of the great things the GOP has done over the years is phrasing things--the "death tax," for example, which means a few zillionaires have to hand over a few bucks before inheriting the extra zillions. "Obamacare" was a pejorative, but the President took possession of it and turned it to his advantage.

Can we take these words back? Can we think of better ones? We'd better hurry, while some good ones are still left.

Who Chooses Our Choices?

2013-04-23T15:00:00.000-04:00

-->

by special guest blogger Michael Fiorillo

The sadomasochistic ritual known as testing season is upon us, and for some reason that makes me think about Choice and the lack of it.

So-called education reformers fervently believe parents should have Choice. By that, they don’t mean parents are members of a community with rights and a voice in the education of their children, but that they are utility-minded consumers in a marketplace, a giant educational supermarket. They’re supposed to be homo edu-nomicus, discerning shoppers walking down the bright, carefully orchestrated aisles, impressed by the color and abundance.

In reality, it’s more like what Michael Pollan describes in his books about the American food and agricultural system: much of that apparent variety and choice is mostly processed, genetically-modified corn or soy, with a lot of sugar, salt and fat thrown in.

Sure, the sign on the door of one of Bloomberg’s new schools may say “Academy of Legal Performing Arts and Criminal Justice Business Studies,” but too much of it is variations on a theme of Test Prep.

What they call school choice is in fact a gigantic loss of democracy, community stability, institutional memory. And with the neutralization and intended demise of the teacher unions, it’s a big decline in living standards, going years forward into the work lives of today’s children.

The billionaires who’ve altruistically decided to buy controlling shares in US education have a peculiar definition of choice. In their selfless magnanimity, they’ve chosen our choices for us, and they’ve also chosen what we cannot choose.

Closing public schools and replacing them with charters and teacher-free i-Things is Choice.

Equitably supporting all neighborhood and community public schools is Not a Choice.

Common Corporate Standards are Choice (don’t ask how, but take it on rigorous faith).

An enriched curriculum for all students, including art, music, physical education and play time, is Not a Choice.

Tests, more of them, on everything, are Choice.

Opting out of the tests is most definitely Not a Choice.

For teachers, speaking out publicly and critically about the tests is supremely Not a Choice, as our very own union warned us.

When it was time for most so-called reformers to send their own kids to school, they made an emphatic Choice to give them a very different education than what they’re imposing on other people’s kids.

That will give those parents and teachers No Choice but to fight back for what’s left of their children’s public education.

Gotham Schools Defends High-Stakes Testing

2013-04-22T17:30:00.001-04:00

Today, Gotham Schools saw fit to run a "principled" defense of standardized testing. As corporations continue to massively profit off of our children, as Pearson makes preposterous, indefensible and humiliating errors, someone at Gotham decided this was a good time to run this piece.

First of all, it's interesting to read the writer's claims:

I have no stake in testing itself, beyond that of a taxpayer and an educator privileged to work with teachers and schools.

And then there's this:

One of the amazing things I get to do for a living is help schools design performance-based assessments that ask students to do something with what they have learned, not just recall what they’ve learned.

While that's a qualifier, it's pretty clear to me that this is someone who designs assessments for a living. And last time I looked, tests were assessments. Furthermore, one of the things I keep hearing about Common Core is that it promotes thinking skills beyond mere recall. And it better, since kids taking it this year are largely unprepared for it, and likely to fail in huge numbers. (And let's not even mention how much money there will be in local assessments with the new junk science VAM law in NY State. How could that possibly motivate an assessment-designer to support assessments?)

There is a lot of talk about policy makers and test designers. Yet it certainly appears to be billionaire Bill Gates who set up this system, and Arne Duncan who forced states to accept it by tying Race to the Top to it. And you'll pardon me if I fail to be impressed by all the people with doctorates working for Pearson--they don't know my kids like I do and I've seen no evidence they can teach better than I can, let alone that they know better than I what my kids need to know.

The history of assessment design has some parallels in the evolution of the medical field.

And yet, medicine is tested before it's used on the public. Common Core was not. It's remarkable someone so fond of scientific terminology can neglect such an obvious fact.

A hundred years ago, doctors were boring into patients’ brains to relieve migraines.

And this year, all over the country, teachers are being rated by student test scores. That's been proven valid absolutely nowhere, and it's brought to you by precisely the same great minds that are now forcing Common Core on our children.

Security does not mean secrecy.

And yet, if teachers reveal the test questions to the public, they will be fired and lose their state certification. It's pretty clear to any objective observer that they do not want a repeat of the pineapple question fiasco. And again, if these professionals, psychometricians, and doctors are so much more qualified than lowly teachers, why do they have such crap questions, and how did Pearson screw up so badly with the G and T test? Sorry, but the fact that they got caught does not restore my faith in them.

How many things did they fail to catch?

Public accountability is part of the social contract.

Here, the writer chooses to quote GW Bush, who tanked the economy and got us into a disastrous Iraq war. Unfortunately, the writer does not quote precisely, "Is our children learning?" And here, the writer makes a very unscientific argument, apparently in defense of VAM (though the rambling nature of this piece makes it kind of tough to follow). Apparently, science is what the writer argues sometimes, but when science does not support her case, she makes a moral argument. And that is precisely the argument GW made when he wanted to know whether or not our children "is" learning. GW, you may recall, was much celebrated for the educational "Texas Miracle," which turned out to be a complete fraud. I've seen no evidence Common Core will work any better, but of course we've never tested it, so how would anyone know?

It appears the writer failed to consider potential school closings, degraded neighborhoods and teachers losing jobs for no good reason. Too bad for them, I guess.

Our state takes pride in having one of the longest standing departments of education.

Bloomberg certainly took pride in it when he bought that third term. Of course, it turned out the test scores he'd trumpeted in his "Keep it Going, NY" campaign were utter nonsense. Diane Ravitch was ridiculed for pointing that out months before it was revealed to the public. Ravitch, who actually seems to believe in science, looked at the NAEP scores and saw something was not right. She was proven right then, and I fully believe her opposition to Common Core will be proven correct as well. It's truly unbelievable that we're foisting anything thoroughly untested on an entire nation of schoolchildren and hoping for the best. NY State's record is nothing I'd boast about, particularly given their decision to follow billionaires rather than science or logic.

Test designers don’t control what happens in the classroom.

That's true, but the fact is people like Bill Gates, who enabled and pushed this untested mandate on us, absolutely wishes to do so. And when teachers are rated on test scores, it's pretty much like putting guns to our heads. Let me tell you something--if teachers are going to lose their jobs based on these test scores, they are pretty damn important. There will be an awful lot less teaching love of literature to kids when jobs depends on how well they can read train schedules and menus.

Doctors have come beyond using leeches to bleed bad humors from their patients. Science is not perfect, but it's a whole lot better than the nonsense and voodoo we're inflicting on our kids. When I say our kids, I'm referring to those in public schools, as opposed to the kids of John King, Mike Bloomberg, Barack Obama, Michelle Rhee, and Joel Klein.

Because the crap they're giving our kids, the crap being pushed in this article, is not good enough for their kids.

That's why they just sell the stuff. They don't use it.

Reformier and Reformier

2013-04-21T09:58:00.000-04:00

The Daily News is all excited about the advent of the Common Core. Never mind that it has never been tested anywhere, ever. The vital thing is that we implement it immediately. Doubtless the editorial writers, should they ever fall ill, would want to be treated with experimental medicines that have never been tried on anyone, and hope for the best. Because that, in fact, is pretty much what they're advocating for our children, amazingly, as "just what" they "need."

The hero of their story is reformy John King, who's not afraid to do whatever it takes to bring more testing to our children. The villain, of course, is that awful teacher union, which wants to delay it. Apparently, NYSUT, full of radical unionists, is not of the opinion frustrated unprepared children are a net plus.

The News, though, says King is "fighting the good fight."

It is conceivable that the pass rates could fall well below 40%, with some local districts down even into the single digits.

And this, to the minds of the Daily News editorial board, is somehow helpful. Of course, since teachers are now to be judged by test scores, it could be. If your goal is to dump as many unionized employees as possible, you could really give your cause a head start. Doubtless kids will be better off without all those teachers anyway, what with TFA McTeachers available at a moment's notice to take their place (at least for a couple of years).

The reason will be that although the kids are as smart as they always were, they are nowhere near as smart as they need to be.

Apparently, to the minds of the Daily News editorial board, test scores represent how smart kids are. It does not represent how many answers they have memorized, or how well they can guess. I'm just a lowly teacher, but I'd argue it is not our job to make kids smarter. I'd argue it's our job to inform and prepare them. I'd argue it's our job to awaken or inspire their passions. I'd argue it's our job to make them love this great gift that is our lives.

Of course, I'm not John King, I haven't got his three years of teaching experience, and I'm not in any position to make decisions about education. I'm not even permitted to grade the tests John King makes my students take, the ones that represent the good fight, the ones my kids will fail, and the failing of which will somehow make them better-prepared for college.

All I can do is ask this--if these tests are so wonderful, so vital to character-building, why on earth doesn't bold, innovative John King see them as suitable for his own child?

Thought for Today

2013-04-20T13:42:00.003-04:00

Authentic Assessments

2013-04-18T17:15:00.001-04:00

It's remarkable that the geniuses at NYSED came up with new tests replete with product placements. They're very proud that the materials are all authentic. Perhaps this will teach our children how to more accurately process the next Diet Coke with Bacon ad, or the next coupon they find online.

It will certainly help our kids if we are able to tell them, "Buy one, get one free," is advantageous to "Pay for two, and get one." Now I was personally never taught that, and as a result, I had to learn it on the street.

We can teach kids all sort of useful information, like how to read a train schedule. Not that a whole lot of city kids do that, what with subways and all, but you never know when Mom and Dad will pack up and move to Omaha.

You'll want the kids to know how to read menus too. They'll need to differentiate between food items and prices. After all, you don't want your kid bringing a chicken into the diner and demanding $11.95 for it. That could prove embarrassing. But the whole product placement thing is another great idea. After all, it's all over the movies, TV, and the internet, so they'll have to get used to it. With the state placing products and saying they just happen to be there, kids can get used to passive advertising.

When McDonald's comes out with their new Ratty McCheeseballs, they can place an ad in the state test. Not only will it offset the expense of using ridiculous outside companies to produce tests teachers could produce as part of their regular jobs, but it will also get kids right into the consumer market we're preparing them for. No more of that Shakespeare nonsense for us. If it can't be advertised, bought and sold, who needs it? There's no Common Core if we can't make our kids eat the apple it comes from.