Secretary Howard Schoor—welcomes us,

Approval of minutes—accepted.

President’s Report—Mulgrew is in Albany.

Schoor—Mark Twain said "No man’s life, liberty or property is safe while the legistlature is in session."

Staff director’s report—LeRoy Barr—Mayor’s committee met, will meet again this week, will come back with reservation. Will be video series on Black History Month at 52. Will show movie 13, discussion about A. Phillip Randolph and something on Shirley Chisolm.

Says Cuomo spoke positively on education. Speaks of Randi Weingarten’s speech, against DeVos. Next EB the 23rd. DA January 18th.

Questions—

Jonathan Halabi—New Action—We have an issue with a principal, Sean Mengar, came in as Teaching Fellow at Truman, became principal in NE Bronx. Among worst turnover, 50%, much untenured staff, Sent all staff home one day except new teachers, discontinued large portion of staff.

I was horrified to see this principal’s picture on subway wall as model, place by DOE and Teaching Fellows. Can we stop this?

Schoor—We didn’t have approval, of course. I’m concerned about what’s going on at the school. Please inform me so we can investigate. We are focusing on a group of schools to bring to attention of DOE


Arthur Goldstein—MORE—I recall coming here to vote on an evaluation system, and Bloomberg scuttling it. I don’t recall being asked to vote on any subsequent agreement. I would like to know how many rank and file directly affected by this agreement had a voice in crafting it. I know high school reps on this body weren’t surveyed or asked anything whatsoever.

This notwithstanding, it’s likely there would be a broad consensus among membership for fewer observations than we currently require. It might make sense, and certainly would in a large school like mine, for administrators to adhere to the state minimum of two, and reserve further observations for members in need of support. I grant this will be unlikely to help in cases with supervisors who are insane lunatics, but that is another discussion.

Are MOTP revisions coming, and if so will we be consulted, and how?

Schoor—will be report later, you may ask questions.

Ashraya Gupta—MORE—  What about immigrant liaison and paid parental leave?

Schoor—nothing on liaisons, no union has negotiated paid parental leave as of yet. They cannot impose system on us as they did for non-union employees. First union to agree with set a pattern. Right now they are saving money when we go on leave. We would prefer to set our own pattern.

Gupta—Are we advocation for paid family leave or parental leave?

Schoor—We will get, likely, what they’ve offered others.

Amy Arundell—This is parental leave.

Mike Schirtzer—MORE—I asked about ICT classes out of compliance. Do you have any data and is there anything we can do?

Carmen Alvarez—DOE doesn’t exactly track it. We may do surveys of our own. We’re trying to figure it out and work with DOE.

Schirtzer—How many complaints have been filed?

Alvarez—We can do general numbers, but complaints confidential.

Amy Arundell—Update on evaluation.

UFT has prepared an evaluation guide, emailed link to members. Guide covers evaluation system for next 6 months. We will prepare a more comprehensive guide for next school year. We have offered CL meetings to update them. Began last week. 80 CLs came to 52. Have trainings in other boroughs this week. We have 450-500 CLs getting info. Also providing training in districts, for CLs who can’t attend otherwise.

Feedback generally positive. Questions about matrix and MOSL.

We cover changes to MOTP for 2017-18 school year. We’ve tweaked options three and four. Rank and file wants to know why option 4 unavailable to them. 3 for HE and 4 for E. 4 now available to HE and E.

We’re not interested in reducing number of for stakes observations. Principals are. Does everyone remember drive bys with S and U? We wanted to overrule people giving judgments based on little data. We want to hold admin accountable. States that answers my question.

Jackie Bennett

Will be guidance on MOTP. Many things will stay the same. Guidance is coming and selections will be easier because there will be only one measure. Our final scoring is better because now we have the matrix, and benefit of doubt that will push people higher.

There is a question about an asterisk. Law gave us two options and we opted for lower stakes. If you use a certain option it will be more rigorous. This is only if you choose optional learning measure—simpler and lower stakes. E and H combinations gave you E. They will now give you H.

State tried to correct for that. In NY, 3.25 or up was H. State law tried to counterbalance that by raising 3.25 to 3.5 or up. That was, like other things, an attempt to reduce the number of HE teachers. We don’t think it will have much of an effect. State would have allowed for difference between E and D to move to 2.75 but we kept it at 2.5. That was crucial to us.

There is less than 1% ineffective in NYC. We don’t expect that to go up. We expect that teachers will now get benefit of doubt.

Schoor—Peer validator has been successful

Mike Shirtzer--MORE—You said people got one or two drive bys in past. We know most locals got two. Was there any consultation? For those teaching 20 years, why 4, why not two?

Arundell—I’m not sure it’s a waste of time. We now require observable evidence. We get many arbitrary and capricious reports overturned. We’ve raised bar. With very few rules it was worse, now you can’t make it up. More teachers are engaging and pushing back. Level of discussion around teaching in my estimation is that we’re shifting how we thing, people empowered. Research shows people observed more bet better ratings.

Schoor—This is negotiated. Not UFT’s plan. We don’t get everything we want. CSA also wanted fewer observations.

Ellen Driesen—D28 rep—I want to support Amy. ESL teacher used what she learned in DOE training. Admin marked her lower for it. Went back in with training info and rating was changed. Win for her.

Arthur Goldstein—MORE--I didn’t simply ask for fewer observations. I asked for fewer when well-rated people didn’t need more. Also, I’ve seen evidence of supervisors making things up. Wouldn’t be actionable until I rating. In fact they can make it up.

Jonathan Halabi—New Action--What percentage are getting D?

Schoor—About 7%

Bennet—Many D will go to E. Expects decrease, but doesn’t want to predict.

Schoor—Used to represent people with U ratings. Principal would go first, say they stand on the record, though there was nothing in teacher’s file. I’d say nothing was in the file, there was no documentation. That used to happen. They can’t do that anymore. 
Reports from districts

George Altomare—On Saturday February 11th social studies conference. We have an excellent honoree, pres of  central labor council.  Would like good showing. If you can’t make it, please get some really good social studies teachers.

Glad to hear there was bargaining. In 1962 when we had just won first election, we were ready to negotiate. Didn’t have collective bargaining. On January 10, 1962, no one had ever been to 10th floor Livingston St. We went in and there was this long oak table. When we walked in that room, we sat on one side and faced others with equal power, not because they gave it to us, but because we earned it.

Think of that anniversary. It’s something you can’t buy or get any other way than fighting for it.

Legislative Report

Paul Egan

Cuomo looking more friendly. Special election in Bronx.

LeRoy Barr—requests we vote on NYSUT resolutions as block.

Zika virus, ELLs, Consent education, opposing constitutional convention, new teacher induction. We’ve done them before.

Schoor—favor of voting as six—no opposition.

Barr—Speaks to them. 500 cases of Zika in NYC, 50 in pregnant women. Appropriate instruction for ELLs. Support consent ed.—1 in 5 women, 1 in 59 men reported rape. Constitutional convention—urge no vote—Respect for All—communities have suffered hate, locals will show support—Meaningful new teacher induction.

Schoor—asks vote.Passes.

Janella Hinds—Resolution on scoring of Regents. Should be in school, not outside of school. Exams have been lost. Inconvenient to students. Time and money wasted. There is another way. We are pushing DOE to change policy.

Mike Schirtzer—MORE--I am sent out regularly. Depends on leadership structure in building. Some places have been good, others disasters. We know we can grade one another’s Regents. All US History exams last year were graded per session. We would like to add a resolved, that CLs stay in schools and represent visiting scorers until this is fixed.

Hinds—Important that we have union representation in all sites. Informally, we visit sites, and ID CLs in site. Would be dangerous to support this because we are not responsible for assigning members to sites. We do not have authority to do that, though it is important we have representation. We, the UFT, do not assign people. We may negotiate it but cannot mandate it.

Stuart Kaplan—Agrees with Janella.

Jonathan Halabi—New Action--Resolution important. There are state standards but not state curriculum. Geometry taught differently school to school. Have seen kids marked wrong for doing things not accepted in their schools. This is a big deal, teachers and students hurt by this.

We should endorse home school CL supporting everyone in building. Have run into difficulties with crazy APs imposing stupid regulations. We need representation in buildings.

We should support this and perhaps modify it. Reps are great, but there for short time

Eliu Lara—All DRs go around and cover every single site. Strange for people to say there is no representation. We have borough offices. We have nothing to do locally on Regents days. Opposes change.

Vote on Schirtzer amendments—fails on party lines

Resolution passes.

We are adjourned.

My friends at the ICE blog say that NJEA wants more and longer observations. There is an argument to be made for that. For example, the fewer times you are observed, the more each one counts. If you're only observed once or twice, a bad day could be quite costly. I wouldn't write a test or quiz with only two questions and expect it to represent how well my students knew a topic. (Of course I wouldn't write one with four questions either.)

There is an argument to be made that the larger the sample is, the more accurate the results will be. That, in fact, is one very good reason why the entire NY evaluation system is nonsense. It's entirely possible that a group of students may not represent the teacher's abilities or competence. In fact, since the American Statistical Association says teachers influence test scores by a factor of 1-14%, it's highly unlikely that any group will reflect teacher ability. This notwithstanding, it's where we are.

Since we're here anyway, we may as well go with something that makes sense. To me, at least, if a teacher does well with two observations, that ought to suffice. We ought to give more observations to those who don't do well, thus giving them a chance to improve. This would reduce stress on those who had less to worry about, at least. It would also give supervisors a chance to actually help those teachers in need of support. I don't see how, especially in a large school like mine, supervisors even keep up with the required volume of observations.

There is some reason for hope. At the last meeting I went to, we were told that MOTP was going to be further negotiated. It's common sense to help those who need it, rather than bother with those who don't. I'd think the principals' union would believe that too. In fact there's evidence for that. Last year, the six informals was dropped to four, which I'm pretty sure the principals argued for. This year that was revised--you can ask for four informals but that comes along with two non-evaluative visits from colleagues. The fact that this part of MOTP was negotiated makes me question whether they're really going to do much to improve it in the future, but I'd be glad to be proven wrong.

The one factor that has not been addressed is the most egregious and troubling, and that is the number and practices of insane administrators. UFT reps like to say that the S and U system was flawed because it was completely dependent on the whims of administrators. That's true, to an extent, but it doesn't pass muster as the last word.

For one thing, the stakes were not quite as high. Right now, in NY State, if you get two ineffective ratings, the burden of proof is on you. Now it's one thing for the district to prove you are incompetent. It's quite another for individual teachers to prove a negative, that they are not incompetent. That's a tremendous burden, and fundamentally un-American. When we go to court, we're innocent until proven guilty. It's the other way round for doubly I-rated teachers. That's plainly awful, and perfectly evident to everyone except UFT Unity loyalty-oath signers, who can and do make preposterous arguments about teachers owning the process.

The other is the fact that no one has chosen to address the rather large percentage of blitheringly incompetent supervisors. If, in fact, their judgment is so poor that we need to compensate for it via junk science, crap shoots, and hoping for the best, doesn't it behoove us to address the issue of supervisors who don't know their ass from their elbow? Shouldn't we actually do something about people in charge of education who operate via personal vendetta and petty vindictiveness?

I know some great supervisors. I have seen supervisors act in supportive and helpful ways. But I've also seen the polar opposite. It turns out that people who wish to escape the classroom because they don't like teaching are not precisely the best equipped to support those of us who choose to stay. Who would've thunk it?

We can modify junk science in many ways. Perhaps the matrix does so in a way that fewer teachers will be dragged down for no reason. Perhaps it's true that more teachers will have to do poorly on both axes to be unfairly rated ineffective. But it's all plainly obvious that both axes are still heavily flawed. If we're going to judge teachers, we ought to do so on the basis of ability and competence. I see two axes in the matrix, and both still rely heavily on chance and luck.

Hi it's me, your old pal "Punchy" Mike Mulgrew! Put em up! Nah. Just kidding. You didn't think I was really gonna hit you over that Common Core stuff, did you? I was just showing everybody I was, you know, passionate and stuff.

Anyhoo, I'm just writing to let you know that we're gonna do a Thunderclap against that bad old Betsy DeVos. Because it's really important we all take to social media and let them know that we're opposed to Betsy DeVos. Do you know that she supports charter schools? Can you imagine? Hey, that's outrageous. Now it's one thing when we support charter schools, because we support, you know, the right kind of charter schools. She supports, more like, you know, the wrong kind of charter schools. Yeah, that's the ticket. Do you support the wrong kind of charter schools? Of course not.

Because, you know, charters divert money that could go to public schools. That's why we sort of oppose them sometimes, except really we don't. In fact, the UFT Charter School (which is one of the good charter schools) is co-located in a public school building. But because it's, you know, a good charter school, well, you know, it's not a bad one, so it's, you know, OK. And we firmly oppose privatization of public schools except, you know, the good kind, like, when we do it.

So anyway here's the thing--Betsy DeVos supports vouchers, and vouchers are bad. Why? Well, they take money away from public schools, and that's bad. Except when it's done for good schools, you know, like the UFT charter, which is OK. So we need to, you know, get on our computers and do the whole social media thing and do a Thunderclap, whatever the hell that is.

Well, OK, when I say that we need to do it, what I actually mean is that you need to do it. You know, I'm the President and stuff, and I'm really busy. I have to, you know, go places and do stuff. And lots of the stuff I do is, you know, important. For example, I missed one of my own Executive Board meetings because I was out traveling around the country campaigning for Hillary. And it was vital that I did that because if I didn't, who knows, maybe Donald Trump would be President and we'd be facing an Education Secretary who supported privatization and charter schools. Not that that would be bad, you understand, if it were a good Education Secretary supporting privatization and charter schools, like, say, Arne Duncan.

Now you remember Arne Duncan, who did that Race to the Top thing. That's why we have this evaluation system. And this evaluation system is much better than the old one. I know, because I helped write the law that created it. Then I thanked the Heavy Hearts Assembly when they passed the new version, and now I've negotiated this new thing with the Matrix and a bunch of new stuff that doesn't exist yet. And who better than me to judge it, because I'm like, objective and stuff because it doesn't affect me at all. How cool is that?

But anyway, like, what I'm saying is, you know, you need to get on social media. Jeez, I use a flip phone and I don't even know what the hell social media is. All I know is that bloggers are purveyors of myth and while I don't read the blogs I know none of them are true, so, like, don't read them.

Oh crap there's another Executive Board meeting on Monday. I'm gonna have to take the elevator all the way down to the second floor and say some crap about something or other. Man I am sure glad to be the President so I don't have to sit through the whole meeting and, like, you know, vote on stuff or speak or listen to anyone. I hear those MORE/ New Action people want to do stuff like, you know, reduce class size and fight against abusive administrators. What a bunch of losers.

Anyway, like, get on social media and do the Thunderclap thing, and, like, say whatever we tell you to say because that's, you know, what activists do. Thanks for all you do, and please keep doing it, because I sure as hell don't want to have to do it myself.

It's 2017, in case it's escaped your attention, and city schools are still not universally air-conditioned. My building is better than most, in that it's largely air conditioned, but as anyone who works in a city school can attest, things break, and they aren't always fixed instantly. Last year the AC in my classroom dropped dead sometime late spring, and I remember a particularly miserable day that I was observed. I didn't fare all that badly, but I'm absolutely certain the lesson would've gone badly if the kids and I were not so miserable in the heat.

And it's not really about being observed or not. NYC has made big noises about being putting, "Children First, Always." The fact is you don't do that by placing kids in miserable learning conditions. When I lived in a non-air conditioned apartment I remember retreating to the library to do work, simply because it had AC. In fact, when Chancellor Carmen Fariña wanted to rationalize keeping schools open during a massive snowstorm, she cited the fact that Macy's was open. Well, if we're gonna go by what Macy's does, it probably isn't working out that well, since they just closed 68 stores and fired 10,000 people. Aside from that, there's no way Macy's would open on a summer day without AC.

The principal of Fashion High School is now running a GoFundMe campaign to get air conditioners for his school. I have to applaud his efforts. He's really showing concern for not only the kids he represents, but also his staff. There's no way that kids can learn efficiently, or teachers can teach efficiently when it's 98 degrees in the classroom. There are only so many articles of clothing you can take off, roll up or loosen, and then you're pretty much stuck wishing you were anywhere but here. How you are "highly effective" under those conditions is a mystery to me.

But as laudable as the principal's efforts are, if I were Carmen Fariña, I'd be utterly humiliated. This principal's efforts are her failure. Fariña can talk until she's blue in the face about how much she cares about schoolchildren, but leaving something like this out there in the public eye is a huge embarrassment. It would be for me, anyway. I mean, it's very nice that she takes a group of seven or eight kids to a museum somewhere and discusses fine art with them. I'd be delighted to do that. Of course, it's not quite as easy for a lowly teacher like me to get away with a small group to a place like that. To portray that as typical in NYC is absurd.

More likely you're in some sweltering classroom with 34 kids, trying desperately to keep them alert and stay alert yourself. In fact, that's where I found myself this September, except I had 40 kids rather than 34. Our AC was replaced, in fact, and our class was reduced to contractual limits, but there are still 42 oversized classes in my school, at last count, and new kids are coming in each and every day.

It's nice that Fariña can bring a few kids to a museum. That's great for those kids. But in terms of big picture, NYC still has the largest class sizes in the state of New York, and they haven't been changed in fifty years. Also, just about everyplace is air-conditioned now except New York City schools. Principals ought not to have to take to funding campaigns for basic necessities, and if anyone at Tweed thinks this represents putting children first, second, or anyplace but last, they need to have their heads examined, and not by a DOE doctor either.

Thanks to Mike Schirtzer

Me—Why can’t we have an evaluation system that isn’t nonsense?

UFT—Well, just because you think it’s nonsense doesn’t make it nonsense.

Me—It’s not only me, it’s also the American Statistical Association and Diane Ravitch.

UFT—Well, Diane Ravitch isn’t God.

Me—Then why do I have her statue on the dashboard of my car?

Last night I went to a chapter leader training about the new evaluation system. I heard a few things. One is that the new portfolio and student achievement stuff doesn't actually exist yet. I'm not sure how I missed that. So not only does that stuff sound odd and potentially time-consuming, but no one actually knows what it is yet. Will it help teachers or students? It's hard to say, but I doubt it. When you make up a program out of whole cloth, when you haven't got any studies or research to support it, when you then enact it and hope for the best, it's hard to vouch for its validity.

Another is that MOTP reform is supposedly coming later. So maybe we won't have to worry quite as much about random drive-bys. I saw no indication that this was a UFT goal, but teachers would like to see fewer, and so would administrators. There are a whole lot of them who are overwhelmed by the demands of these observations. A single department in my school has 54 members. Can you imagine doing 200 observations and writing up reports? I guess you could do it, and I guess you could meet 200 times with teachers. I guess you could also do the rest of your job too. How well? Who knows?

If UFT leadership wants to improve this system (and who knows what they want, what with a President who doesn't answer email or attend his own meetings), they will meet the law's requirement of 2 observations per year. They will arrange for additional observations on an as-needed basis. A principal, not mine, told me that she could observe someone once a year, and if there were no issue, she could leave it at that. If they needed additional help, she could do more observations and work with the teacher in question. This was someone I respect, and I always remembered that.

Thought the MOTP reforms are supposed to come later, at least one of them is already here. Though presented as some kind of improvement, the four informals option now included two visits from colleagues. I'm not bothered by that. But I'm one person, and I'm not as sensitive as some of my colleagues. Teachers are beaten down and demoralized and terrified. This has been happening over time, and the new evaluation system hasn't helped. UFT reps can stand and talk about what an improvement this new system is, but that shows how out of touch they are. I don't know a single teacher who likes it better. I hate getting a checklist, and if it says I'm effective I don't much care what else it says.

This is not the only reason that UFT leadership is out of touch with how working teachers feel about this. You can't overstate the fact that no one in leadership has actually been subject to this system. No one. No one knows how it feels. And all their feedback comes from those in the Unity echo chamber. Since they've all signed loyalty oaths, their judgment is suspect. How can you trust someone to represent you if that person has signed an oath to support Michael Mulgrew in all things? How can you trust people who've agreed to speak one way even if it negates your personal experience? How can you trust people who've taken patronage jobs that depend on loyalty to leadership? Shouldn't someone who represents members be loyal to them first?

The first time we got an evaluation system we went to 52 Broadway to vote on it. That was kind of a pro forma exercise, as UFT DA is dominated by loyalty oath signers, and it was very clear how they were supposed to vote. When that didn't work out, Michael Mulgrew left it in the hands of Reformy John King. Evidently Mulgrew thought the reformiest man in New York was a fair arbiter. Chalkbeat reported that neither UFT nor DOE wanted so many observations, but John King knew better.

The system was revised two more times. UFT sent their band of negotiators, none of whom had lived under this system, because they know best what's good for us. Always. They didn't bother putting it up for a vote, because why bother? Democracy is for losers, and America should know that, having cast 2.9 million more votes for Hillary Clinton than President-elect Donald Trump.

My mind keeps running to Friedrichs two, and what will happen when dues are optional. If leadership wishes to help itself, it's gonna have to be responsive to us, to say the least. I'm not sure a dynasty can change its spots. But I'm always hopeful.

We live in a funny place, but not many of us can afford to laugh. I may have had a disparaging word for the steep rise in co-pays we've faced this year, but relatively, they're not nearly as bad as they could be. I have to now think twice before spending 50 bucks at an urgent care, but usually when you or a family member need a place like that, 50 bucks is the last thing on your mind. The real issues are the fact that Mulgrew never presented this to us when selling the contract, and we have no idea how many more add-on costs will pop up these next few years.

We're the only wealthy nation that doesn't guarantee health care for its citizens. As if that isn't bad enough, the new GOP leadership is getting ready to roll back the few improvements Obamacare achieved. I've read a lot of complaints about it. There are high deductibles, for example, and high premiums. Nonetheless, there may be fewer bankruptcies over catastrophic medical emergency, and fewer homes being sold to pay crippling hospital bills. I learned that this was a thing decades ago, and it's remarkable that we've allowed it to continue.

When I was in college at SUNY New Paltz, I played weekends in a band. Most of our work was in Queens. I would hitchhike or take buses and trains on weekends, go to work, and come back. One of my band members was in Queens too. We would stay at his house sometimes. His mom had some issue, and lost first her leg and then her life as a result.

My friend's dad had to sell his house to pay doctor bills. He moved into the basement of the home of one of his sons. One Christmas he took a gun and blew his brains out. That was the first time I started to think our health system, to say the very least, was not all that good. In fact, it began to look unconscionable at that point, and time hasn't done much of anything to change my mind. While Obamacare was far from ideal, it was the first and only improvement on a system designed to enrich insurance companies rather than help working Americans.

The first time I got health insurance myself was when I became a teacher. I think at that time you had to wait six months before you took out insurance. Either that or no one told me I was eligible. In any case, I was at John F. Kennedy High School, and I asked my chapter leader what insurance I should get. He didn't want to tell me, saying he couldn't be responsible and this and that. I pressed him, though, and he told me to get GHI with CBP. I did, and I still have it.

Before I got this chapter leader job, I spent a lot of time playing music when I wasn't at school. To ensure I would never make any money at all doing this, I chose to play bluegrass fiddle. Another really cool thing about doing this is that almost no one in this area even wants to hear it, so I'd travel a lot to New Jersey and Pennsylvania. One Sunday I had a job playing in a historic theater in Pennsylvania. We were opening for the late James King and his band.

The folks who hired us sent us out to lunch down the block from the theater. I remember that I sat with his banjo player. He was the only person in his band who appeared to be in good physical shape. I'd brought my family, and I remember that the banjo player and I both ordered Reuben sandwiches.

Later in the week I got a call. The banjo player experienced chest pains on Monday. Knowing that a visit to the ER would've run him thousands of dollars, a number of dollars that not a whole lot of bluegrass musicians have, he decided to tough it out. The next day he died.

How could this happen? If he lived in Canada, in Europe, in any other wealthy country in the world he'd almost certainly be around today. But he isn't. Back when I was heavily into this bluegrass thing, I'd often hear news about a benefit somewhere for some professional musician or other. These were not weekend warriors like me, but rather folks who were out on the road doing this all the time. How could our country not support artists? In fact, how could we not support everyone?

Obamacare made some improvements. No one gets excluded for existing medical conditions. Kids were covered under parent plans until 26. It did away with plans that didn't meet a minimum standard. It helped some people who needed financial assistance. But it still relied on private insurance companies focused on profit rather than people. And the GOP refused to work toward improving it, focusing rather on killing it and moving us back toward the nothing we had earlier.

Now they pull all the levers of power and their plan appears to be to kill it and tell us all to sink or swim. While anyone with the option will choose the latter, not all will be able to afford it. As if that weren't enough, they want to roll back Social Security and Medicare. Me, I can't believe anyone would vote for these people. I can't believe they persuade anyone with a job they have their interests at heart. But Fox News is a thing, people watch it, and they believe what they say. Some people don't need no stinking facts and won't be swayed by them either.

What we really need is single-payer, which seems to work better than our system everywhere it's used.  Most Americans agree. So how can we allow Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, and all their flying monkeys actively work against our interests?

More importantly, what can we do now to advance the agenda we actually prefer?

After a bruising loss in a presidential campaign, United Federation of Teachers leadership has redoubled its quest to learn nothing whatsoever. It wasn't enough that we went all out for a presidential candidate who stood up for half-hearted, warmed-up pablum rather than real solutions for America. We needed to continue our march toward mediocrity because that's our prime directive.

As such, even after a loathsome reptile manipulated his way into the Presidency of the United States, even after he swore to cripple our power via the Supreme Court, even after he enabled and emboldened vile bigotry, racism and homophobia all around the country, we remained too timid to even utter his name.

Leadership knows best, after all. They understand about manipulated elections and suppression of democracy because that is their stock in trade. When high school teachers get uppity and elect officers of whom they disapprove, they change the rules so they can't do that anymore. When chapter leaders dare to elect the District Reps they wish to support them from opposition, they simply change the rules and hand pick them. That's how you maintain power by any means necessary without regard for democracy.

And now there are stirrings in NYSUT. After UFT and NY State Unity leadership led a coup to overthrow a sitting President who objected to financial support of Andrew Cuomo, there are still hundreds of locals who feel disenfranchised. There is a lot of anger, rightfully so, that NYSUT has now become just another arm of the UFT, and doesn't even bother to pretend otherwise. Thus, there is for the first time ever, an opposition caucus in NYSUT called Stronger Together. Stronger Together is largely the brainchild of firebrand Beth Dimino, the outspoken President of the Port Jefferson Station Teacher Union. Alas, Dimino is stepping down and while there are some very capable people remaining, it's an open question whether there is anyone remaining who can rival her vision and passion.

There is, of course, a potential NYSUT solution for all those pissed off locals. They could run a few members of the opposition on the Unity ticket. This would not only preclude a contentious campaign, but also perhaps mute the vocal opposition. It might even give NYSUT locals the impression that it is no longer being run by the machine that shoved Hillary Clinton down the throats of rank and file with little to no member input. The new members could voice opposition within NYSUT, and perhaps the machine would be forced to pay lip service to member concerns. But it's hard to believe that they will accomplish anything substantive. In fact, it's hard to believe the machine would do even that, obsessed as it is with perpetuating itself via absolute control.

Remember this? This is the campaign pamphlet that Revive NYSUT passed out at the convention in which they overthrew mean old Dick Iannuzzi, who'd finally objected to Pallotta buying tables at Cuomo fund raisers. Despite ostensible opposition, President Karen Magee pretty much said it was Common Core or anarchy. NYSUT never opposed Cuomo, and never opposed APPR. In fact, the only legislative accomplishment they can boast of is making sure that leadership got double pensions.

There really are good people, smart people, in Stronger Together. I'd feel better with them in leadership than the current UFT pawns. But the fact is, even if they make any such deal, I'm absolutely certain it would be contingent on said pawns staying in place. When one of them is replaced, it will be by a sitting UFT official. That deal is already in place and UFT leadership can't even be bothered keeping it secret.

As bad as UFT leadership is, a strong bastion of principled resistance to the counter-productive and anti-democratic machinations of the dual Unity Caucuses is still right here in Fun City. I am very proud to be part of it. It's nice that Revive NYSUT can campaign on transparency, but the heart of NYSUT still lies at 52 Broadway, and they are nothing if not secretive and manipulative. We're still waiting, for example, to learn when it will be okay to mention Donald Trump's name, as opposed to disingenuously attributing the explosion in racism and bigotry to "The Presidential Election."

I certainly hope that Stronger Together succeeds in reforming the union. The rationale is that we are facing a really tough time, and that the only way we can face it is by presenting a united front. Here in NYC, we've heard that song before, specifically from the New Action Caucus. New Action made a deal with UFT Unity in the Bloomberg era, citing the threat that Bloomberg faced to our very existence. But New Action learned that didn't really work for them. Last year they decided to join the MORE Caucus and we took the important first step of winning the high school seats on the UFT Executive Board. Though we are massively outvoted by the Unity machine at Executive Board, we've shown that leadership is unwilling to take firm stands against things like class size violations and abusive administrators. When members see proof of what leadership does and does not stand for, high schools will no longer be alone in opposing ridiculous "seat at the table" politics.

MORE is affiliated with Stronger Together, and has been for a few years now. We ran in opposition to the machine, and I was proud to run a David and Goliath campaign against Executive VP Andrew Pallotta. I don't speak for MORE and I don't make decisions for it. But as a New York City high school teacher, I certainly pay dues to NYSUT, and I can't help but notice that there are exactly zero people elected by UFT high school teachers who have a voice in its decisions.

You could argue that NYSUT has UFT representation, and that's certainly true. But the fact is, in the last UFT election high school teachers decided to go another way. And before you dismiss us as a bunch of cranks, the fact is we have more members than the Philadelphia Teacher Union, not to mention the overwhelming number of NYSUT locals. In fact, my school alone has more members than some NYSUT locals.

Again, I'm not speaking for MORE, or ICE, or any UFT-affiliated caucus or teacher organization. But I can't and won't support any movement that doesn't provide a voice and vote for the high schools I represent. I'd be very surprised if MORE took a position contrary to that. If Stronger Together chooses to go ahead and ignore or even tacitly endorse our disenfranchisement, it's no better than the machine it purports to oppose.

And if UFT, or AFT, or NYSUT thinks that backroom deals will protect it from Friedrichs Mach 2, it's laboring under a serious misconception. We need representation, not rationalization. We've had the latter for decades, and it's gotten us precisely where we are today. 

What do you call it when voting rights are under assault, and those affected are largely those who'd be pivotal in a national election? Does anyone really believe that we're having a crisis because people don't show photo ID when we vote? I know a guy who watches Fox News who told me that. Now me, I believe that it's blatant manipulation to favor the Republican Party, which is squarely the worse of two less than perfect choices in the United States. Clearly this is manipulation, and clearly it may have turned the tide in this presidential election.

Then, of course, you read all this stuff about Russia and Putin. You see candidate Donald Trump ask the Russians to leak crap about Hillary to Wikileaks, or wherever. Some are now saying this is a big smokescreen and the Dems are just using all this Russia talk to deflect blame for their miserable failure to defeat one of the least popular presidential candidates in history. So perhaps it's not true, and the FBI and CIA are incorrect that Russia had something to do with this election. I don't really know. But the whole thing stinks regardless.

And hey, let's talk about those wacky funsters at the FBI. What is the deal with James Comey coming out with Hillary email stories during the election? Have you ever heard of federal agencies talking investigation of candidates for presidential office during the campaign? First they decide there's nothing to it, and then they come out again and find some stuff on Anthony Weiner's computer or something, issuing grave warnings in the campaign's final days and then drawing them back. With the whisper-thin victories in swing states, it's hard to imagine that this had no effect. It's also hard to imagine that Comey had no idea how important his statements might be. In this case, it's absolutely conceivable that he turned the election. 

Then there's the media, with its odd coverage. Ronald Reagan killed the Fairness Doctrine, enabling crap like Fox News and consistently biased coverage. Bernie Sanders was a loser and not worth covering. Then Bernie started to win and he was still a loser and not worth covering. At no point, evidently, did he have any chance of catching up with Hillary. And that, perhaps, was a self-fulfilling prophecy. To see this man, this man who said all Americans should have health care, who said all Americans should have a living wage, who said all Americans should have access to college education, portrayed as a wild-eyed lunatic was truly outrageous.

And then there's the press now, with its odd coverage of Donald J. Trump. The Wall St. Journal is evidently refraining from calling Trump lies "lies." That's beyond the pale, evidently. We need to respect things like Trump University, because that, for all I know, is where Wall St. Journal editors studied journalism. Of course they didn't cover the voting rights rollback, nor did many media outlets. For that, you'd have to go to The Nation or some equally weirdo site. And who knows who reads stuff like that? Probably loonies like Bernie Sanders and me, with crackpot ideas about taking care of Americans even after they are born. Trump lies outright, and maybe WSJ will get access for not reporting it. Media outlets are nonetheless nervous, with some seeing this man as more or less pathological, and expect a rocky road ahead. They need to get real and tell us the truth, or they're useless.

Then of course, it bears mention that we don't even have a democracy. With 42% of the vote, GOP controls the Senate. And then there's this insane and ludicrous system called the Electoral College that exists for no defensible reason. Donald Trump actually lost by almost 3 million votes and yet he's headed for the White House. But you add all this stuff up and it really looks like a coup. Let's try to be fair. We didn't see anyone storm any palaces. There haven't been any beheadings. But there was a long-term goal, a bunch of people worked toward it, and we now have a juvenile lunatic set to become President of the United States, perhaps something even those who manipulated the system so cynically did not anticipate.

Can it be called a coup if no shots were fired, and rules were bent and manipulated and perhaps not outright broken? I don't know. Sixteen years ago we had an equally odd situation, with Bush losing the popular vote, wacky antics in little brother's state (which is still disenfranchising enough people to turn a Presidential election), and Daddy's Supreme Court making the final decision. So maybe there's precedent. But here's what I know for sure--it stinks to high heaven. This isn't the United States they taught me about back in grade school. It more closely resembles the banana republic from Woody Allen's Bananas, which may one day prove as prescient as Orwell's 1984.

But it's very much beginning to resemble that too. 

Here we are in 2017, and I sincerely wish you all a joyous new year. My hopes for the new year are a little muted, professionally at least. For one thing, my union is still run by an insular group of people with astoundingly poor judgment, and no amount of egregious errors will persuade them they've ever made even the tiniest of mistakes. There are a lot of people who will cheer their actions no matter what their implications, and most of them are on the payroll one way or another.

I go to meetings and watch certain people roll their eyes as we speak, but I am nonetheless a staunch supporter of union. Leadership can roll their eyes when we speak, and invent ridiculous excuses for their lack of commitment, but those of us in opposition understand the value of union. That's why we see "right to work" as such a scam. And make no mistake, those who opt out of paying for union services hurt all of us.

The idea of right to work is that no one should be forced to join a union. That idea is absurd because no one is ever forced to join a union. They can opt out, but if they do they still have to pay a fee for services union provides for all. Those services include negotiating on our behalf. Now I will admit that I don't think UFT leadership does a very good job at this. But on the other hand, they keep getting elected and it is not entirely their fault that three out of four UFT members can't be bothered to check a box and walk to a mailbox to vote.

Of course it's your right and mine to disagree with leadership. You may have even seen me doing so once or twice on this space. Nonetheless, union is our right, organizing is our right, and going hat in hand to ask Mike Bloomberg or Rudy Giuliani for a raise is not anything I'd want to do alone. Right to work supporters disagree. They think they should reap whatever benefit there is from union membership and that payment for such benefits ought to be optional.

If that is what's right, that is what's right. In fact, incoming President Donald J. Trump supports "right to work" as well, and he plans to appoint Supreme Court justices who will make it national policy. Now perhaps you believe that is a good thing. Perhaps you believe that Donald J. Trump is looking out for working people when he does stuff like this. If you believe that, I congratulate you, because you are surely in a better state of mind to begin 2017 than I am.

Of course, based on that line of thought, as someone who supports Donald J. Trump not at all, I ought to be able to opt out of paying taxes. It is really inconvenient to see all those deductions on my paycheck. Since I don't support "right to work," since I don't support any Trump position I can call to mind, and since I don't expect him to represent me or anyone I care about, I ought to be able to opt out of federal taxes. After all, Trump seems not to have payed them. The problem is, though, that he still seems to think I should pay. That's unfair, of course.

But aside from the fact that he has one set of rules for himself and another for working people, if I can't be compelled to pay union dues, I ought not to be compelled to pay taxes either. If there is no responsibility attached to being part of one community, why should there be any attached to another? If I can rightfully expect the United Federation of Teachers to work on my behalf with compensation being optional, why can't I expect the same of the United States of America?

The answer, of course, is that people like Donald J. Trump don't want us to organize against ideas that hurt us. They do want us, however, to be compelled to support the very same government that fights against our interests and impedes our right to organize. If you support "right to work," you may as well support more work for less pay. I don't support that, and I therefore don't support the legislative priorities of Donald J. Trump.

But he's out to weaken us and our unions, and there's no way he's gonna let us off the hook for supporting such counterproductive priorities. Because he and his BFFs are so incredibly greedy and selfish, they don't even understand that hurting and discouraging a middle class is not healthy for this country. As long as he doesn't have to pay taxes, he couldn't care less about those of us who do.

If you believe that weakening union via disingenuous policies like "right to work" are the way to go, and you think paying taxes is different in any way whatsoever, you're laboring under a serious misconception. When Donald J. Trump makes federal taxes optional for all of us, instead of just billionaires like himself, then I'll be happy to listen to him extol the virtues of optional union membership.

Until that moment, you know as well as I do that he's moving us back to the 19th century and that we're gonna have to repeat struggles we thought were over for decades just to get back where we were last November.

from our entire staff!

I'm in a high-performing school. I realize that's not the norm in Fun City. Given that, though,  there are some ways the new evaluation system may work for my members. For one thing, as our test scores are not generally bad, we may be able to use them in lieu of the time-consuming and mystifying portfolios and projects offered as an alternative. On the other hand, in a lot of places that probably won't work, and you're stuck doing who knows what just to survive as a teacher.

Of course I could be wrong. Who knows what Bloomberg bringback Carmen Fariña, who deems blasting blizzards beautiful if Macy's is open, has up her sleeve? Tests can be and are manipulated, and she or the state could make sure they don't work in anyone's favor. Last I heard, ESL teachers like me were forced to use the NYSESLAT test as a measure. This test has nothing whatsoever to do with what I teach. Last week I identified a student with no idea how to use past tense in English who tested proficient. That's ridiculous.

On the plus side, a lot of teachers in my building were rated highly effective by supervisors but just effective by test scores. They were therefore rated effective overall. Under the matrix, if nothing changes, these teachers will be rated highly effective overall. They will thus have only three drive-bys over which to agonize rather than four. I don't know about you, but I have no problem allowing colleagues into my room at any time to observe my classes. I'm happy to discuss what works and what doesn't with them, so the peer observation is no issue for me. I let every student observer come in whenever they wish, and would do the same for my peers whether or not the system called for it.

As for administrators, UFT leaders either don't know or don't care what this system puts people through, even those who do well. They don't understand the constant stress. They don't have to worry about having their jobs on the line year in and year out. The only thing they have to worry about are mean old bloggers who persist in telling the truth, and they clearly don't let truth get in the way of their prime message--that everything is wonderful no matter what actually happens.

Of course relative wonderfulness can change too, even without the acknowledgement of leadership. I heard from a UFT Unity source that the DOE was running around doing norming earlier this school year, and that the overarching message was to rate teachers lower. I know for a fact that DOE people were in my school observing math. Though the teachers achieved excellent scores as a matter of course, the DOE said the teachers were ineffective anyway. I can't comment intelligently on what on earth DOE wants to see in math classes, but after decades of watching them close schools and fire teachers over test scores it's certainly ironic to see them bitching over excellent test results.

Then there is the matter of getting approval. One thing that is unquestionably a good idea is getting a waiver from the outside observers. This particular aspect of Cuomo's law was enacted because in NY State schools are the enemy, not to be trusted. That's why teachers are no longer allowed to grade their own students on Regents exams. The state takes us for a bunch of self-serving crooks who will manipulate our stats to make ourselves look good. They also assume supervisors will rate their teachers well to make themselves look good. This is because the state manipulates test scores as a matter of course to prove whatever it wishes to prove and therefore assumes everyone else is as crooked as they are.

So will we get the waiver on outside observers? If we do, will it be for the duration of our agreement or will it come back to bite us in our collective ass? Who knows? Probably UFT, but they haven't told me yet.

Of course I also realize that a system that works for our building is not a system that works. In fact, if we do well and nearby schools do not, it might argue for schools developing their own systems rather than being judged by the cookie cutter that is the new Cuomo law. The elephant in the room, as usual, is administration.

Micheal Mulgrew can stand up at the DA in front of God and everybody and shout to the skies that we are now protected from vindictive administrators. However, he also said that about the last iteration of the junk science law. I have seen people harassed and made miserable, and I have seen people fired under that law. I have seen small-minded vindictive administrators drive people from cardiac episodes to full blown heart attacks in school hallways. I've seen cancer patients driven out of buildings to face 3020a. I've seen victims of administrative abuse die prematurely. And I've concurrently been lectured by union hacks that if I didn't like the system I was therefore advocating for principals to have total control.

Here's the thing, though--I never saw morale so low as it's been under the new system. UFT Unity leaders, none of whom live under this system, can pat themselves on the back from here to eternity, but teachers were indisputably happier under the S/ U system. I certainly agree with UFT Unity that vindictive administrators are an issue. I therefore have to wonder why we don't address that. Why don't we get our asses off those seats at the table and insist that administrators support rather than harass UFT members? Why don't we dust off Special Circular 28 and insist that those who'd lecture us on how to do our jobs ought to show us that they can practice what they preach?

I've been told it would be unfair to make supervisors give demo lessons, because the fact is classes vary a lot, and there's no way to guarantee students in any given class would react well to lessons. That's absolutely true. But it's also absolutely true for every teacher working in New York City schools under the Danielson rubric. In fact I know supervisors who I've observed, and they were excellent. I also know supervisors who show such poor judgment in dealing with people that they couldn't possibly be good teachers. And these supervisors show absolute confidence as they trash working teachers. If they're as omniscient as they present themselves, let them open up their classrooms to be laboratories. Let us video them so we can more faithfully emulate the remarkable techniques they know perfectly.

Of course that's not gonna happen. Of course UFT leadership didn't make it part of the agreement. As far as I know, like fewer observations, they didn't even ask for it. Like all working teachers who haven't signed a loyalty oath, leadership didn't bother consulting me on this process. At best, we have an improved junk science system that will snag fewer teachers for no reason.

That said, being judged by better quality junk science is nothing for teachers to get excited about. 

Today I received an email from NYSUT Executive Vice President Andy Pallotta. It demanded the removal of the vile racist Carl Paladino from the Buffalo School Board. I am personally not a fan of vile racism, and I'd be happy to see Carl gone yesterday. This notwithstanding, it's no surprise that Paladino spews toxic bigotry, and the fact is we've known about it for years.

There's a petition to remove Paladino, and the email asks you to sign it. I'd already done so, and if you haven't, you may do so right here. We are public servants, and as such it behooves us to have zero tolerance for racism and bigotry of any kind. How can we serve New York's children unless we fight those who'd discriminate against them based on their skin color, nationality, sex, or religion?

We are advocates for children, and as such we fight the good fight.

Unless, of course, we're UFT leadership. Then it's a different story. UFT leadership is determined not to even mention the name of racist President-elect Donald J. Trump. Instead, we are to attribute his hatred and bias to the Presidential Election.

I could draw a lot of conclusions about people who are afraid to say what we all know. In their defense, they'd say they are concerned about alienating the Trump voters. Evidently they are less concerned about alienating those of us who find racism, sexism and bigotry unconscionable. They are less concerned about alienating UFT high school teachers, who chose candidates who believe in speaking forthrightly and naming names. They are less concerned about alienating 11,000 UFT voters who oppose the counterproductive "seat at the table" politics that brought us President Donald J. Trump.

Before one of the first Executive Board meetings I attended, I was approached by a teacher who asked about leaving the union. I told him there was some paperwork involved, but he could easily do it. He then told me he didn't want to pay dues. I told him to vote for Donald Trump and he said he would. That's who UFT leadership is concerned about appeasing.

You and me, not so much.

Meanwhile, as we contemplate the coming new year, here's a poem:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

In our vastly overcrowded multi-session school, to accommodate things like PD and other things in the UFT Memorandum of Agreement, we run a 9 period day. We still teach five periods, but everyone tutors once a week. On Thursdays I tutor period 1. Though I arrive very early almost every day, I always forget. My co-teacher, who is much smarter and better-looking than I will ever be, always reminds me.

Last Thursday I told her I had an aversion to doing stuff, but she said there was just some stuff you have to do, so I went. After that I taught periods two and three. Period four I made a phone call to from someone at UFT to discuss our overcrowding and oversized classes, and then managed to grab lunch in the last fifteen or twenty minutes. We still have a school teacher cafeteria, for some reason or other. There was a time when they were constantly under threat of closure, and I sometimes sent out messages to members in my weekly to please patronize it.

Period five I had a disciplinary meeting. That's my least favorite thing to do. I hate when members are in trouble. Sometimes I'm able to help and sometimes I'm not. It depends on a lot of things. But I never like seeing people in trouble. It's particularly disturbing when there's no reason for it.

Period six our UFT consultation committee met with the principal. We mostly discussed the class size issue, as we've already gone to the arbitrator and they keep popping up. We're at 42 and rising, a few dozen more than we had when I visited the arbitrator way back in October. (You remember October, don't you? That was the month when we kept getting days off for holidays I somehow didn't expect.)  In any case, the arbitrator thinks relieving someone from one C6 a week is a reasonable "plan of action" for class size, she gets paid $1600 a day to be so utterly without a clue, and now I've sent the new oversized classes back to her. Maybe it's because I need to find out if it's possible for the DOE and her to come up with an even worse idea. Who knows? On the other hand, maybe the DOE will realize such nonsense does not remotely reflect placing, "Children First, Always." Or maybe the arbitrator will have a lucid moment. (What? Stuff happens.)

Period 7 and 8 I taught. During period 7 a kid I told to stop wearing his hat in my class wore his hat in my class. Not only that, but he left his phone right out there on his desk. Sometimes I have phones confiscated. I mostly do it when kids make a point of letting me know they don't give a golly gosh darn about one thing or another. I called the dean's office. I got a call back from them that no one was responding. So I left my co-teacher to review the homework and went downstairs to seek out someone. (I don't handle phones. I think it's better to show no anger whatsoever and just make them disappear.) I walked into the principal's office to ask where the deans were, and I was a little surprised when he said he would just deal with it himself.

So I went back up to the room with the principal, who took out the kid, his hat and his phone. I told the principal I didn't want to throw the kid out, but just the hat and phone. But you know how principals can be, and this principal wanted to have a discussion with the kid. This bothered me a little, because I absolutely hate to toss kids out of my classes. I always figure that means they win, because it kind of shows that I can't deal with whatever it is I'm supposed to deal with. But I was able to rationalize this one because it wasn't actually me throwing him out, the principal insisted, and he's the principal so what the hell.

Period 7 and 8 ended, but then I remembered a secretary telling me there was a disciplinary meeting period 9, and that she had sent me an email. I never got the promised email, but I went down anyway, only to have the secretary tell me that the meeting was actually for the next day. So I sat down, opened my laptop, and edited the notes someone took at our chapter committee meeting. Right around the time I finished an AP walked in. I asked her what the meeting was about and she was running somewhere so I ran with her until she could tell me.

On the way home I called the member with whom we had the Friday meeting. I have no idea how I ever existed without Bluetooth. As soon as I got home I walked my dog. I told him all about my day and he seemed fine with it.

So I guess I was too.

We now have another evaluation system, the third or fourth in as many years. Who can even keep track? There's a handy-dandy UFT explanation, with which lowly teachers like me are supposed to discern what the hell is actually going on. In many ways, it raises more questions than it answers, but you have to expect as much from a system that's been essentially made up of whole cloth, that's never been researched or tested anywhere.

The Good--Test scores reflect little more than zip code and percentage of special needs. Therefore, when we forcefully inject test scores into teacher evaluation, we condemn those with large numbers of ELLs, IEPs, and various issues to bad ratings. The option of portfolios, or project-based learning or whatever, while it has its flaws, may prove beneficial.  This may work better for teachers I know who got acceptable ratings by supervisors but were dragged down via test scores. Mulgrew can stand on his pedestal and preach of how rarely this happens, but if you're the one to whom it happens, that's cold comfort indeed. As someone who represents them, I can tell you that statistics mean little or nothing to people whose careers are under attack for no good reason. The fewer people caught in this miserable trap, the better.

The Bad--Again, this system has never been tested anywhere. There is no research whatsoever, anywhere, to suggest there is any validity to it. We have no idea what will happen to teachers like those I mentioned above (or whether it will adversely effect those who previously did well). I  certainly hope fewer of them are caught in the junk science web. But even if that happens, it doesn't argue to the validity of this system. It only means it sucks a little less than the other one.

UFT failed utterly to address a major issue with teachers I speak to on a regular basis, to wit, the number of observations.  Even in my school, one in which most administrators are not insane, teachers live in dread of the random drive-by. For those with administrators who are out of their frigging minds, it's a nightmare. Who knows what they see, since objective reality plays no part in it? When 12 hands go up, why do they see only two? Will they now act because you objected to the counseling memo placed in your file for no good reason? Who knows? It's the same crapshoot it was under the old S/ U system, Danielson means nothing, and even if you have incontrovertible video evidence you can't effectively object to the fictional aspect until and unless you're up for 3020a.

Fewer observations would not only relieve some of the terror of UFT members, but would also give administrators some incentive not to be assholes. If you observed two classes and found them to be OK, you'd be finished. If you wanted to be an asshole and ruin someone's life for no reason, a better system would require you to do more observations and more work. It would require you to do more writing. In my experience, supervisors who are incompetent at writing often need to assert themselves via bad observations. A system that required more work to screw people might dissuade that.

The Ugly--I call it the "UFT Leadership's" system because working teachers had no say in it. That's a disgrace. It behooves a union, particularly one whose dues will soon be optional, to consider member voices.

I have no idea who conceived of this system. I don't believe it was Michael Mulgrew because he cannot even sit through an Executive Board meeting, let alone hear new ideas or freely discuss them with elected high school Executive Board members. What I do know is that neither the Executive Board nor the Delegate Assembly, let alone rank and file, got to vote on these matters. I also know that no one who hasn't signed a loyalty oath had any part in crafting this plan. We can therefore never know whether anything but self-interest had any part in the decision to accept it.

We also now know the utterly predictable reaction to evaluation systems from our enemies. They wasted no time in getting their message out. From the Daily News:

"This is a scheme to rate every teacher effective, cooked up by Mayor de Blasio's biggest donors and it's a major setback for students," said StudentsFirstNY Executive Director Jenny Sedlis.

Of course, like everything that comes out of her well-compensated mouth, this is utter nonsense. But it's important because when StudentsFirstNY, and DFER, and Moskowitz agent Families for Excellent Schools, and all the other crabgrass orgs move suitcases full of cash into the campaign coffers of tinhorn politicians like Governor Andrew Cuomo, they move him to once again pretend he cares about public education. This, in fact, is why he called the first evaluation system "baloney" and pushed a new one down the throats of our spineless Heavy Hearted Assembly. The only reason we may get away without the idiotic "outside observers" is because of the determination and persistence of the opt-out movement (which earns no respect at all from UFT leadership).

So the risk, if this helps teachers at all, is that yet another system comes down the pike to rate teachers poorly. This appears to have played no part whatsoever in UFT Unity's game, which never considers the long-term.

I guess they're happy high up on the 14th floor of 52 Broadway, doing whatever it is they do up there. But I have no idea how they're planning to pay the rent if they don't start considering those of us who do the actual work day after day.

Someone sent me the following passage, in reference to something or other I posted in Facebook about Trump:

"On the sixth day of Hate Week, after the processions, the speeches, the shouting, the singing, the banners, the posters, the films, the rolling of drums and squealing of trumpets, the tramp of marching feet--after six days of this, when the great orgasm was quivering to its climax and the general hatred of Eurasia had boiled up--at just this moment it had been announced that Oceania was not after all at war with Eurasia. Oceania was at war with Eastasia. Eurasia was an ally.

"There was, of course, no admission that any change had taken place. Merely it became known, with extreme suddenness and everywhere at once, that Eastasia and not Eurasia was the enemy."

That's an amazing image, isn't it? And yet, here we are, in version three of an evaluation system firmly rooted in junk science. Our newest version allows non-test-based ratings, but they themselves have never been tested, they have never been studied, they have never been proven, and there is absolutely zero evidence of their validity. Will they help teachers? Who knows? And as James Eterno so ably pointed out, the state requires only two annual observations, yet we largely have a minimum of four. Why? UFT can't be bothered to tell us. Who are we, anyway? Why should we get a vote in UFT deals if we haven't agreed to like them in advance?

Of course, that doesn't sway the loyalty-oath signers on the UFT Facebook page. They, in fact, have agreed, in writing no less, to like whatever leadership tells them to. As usual, though it's never, ever been tested or used, it's a great victory. These are the same people who stood up to fight crediting Donald Trump with being Donald Trump. These are the same people who stood against enforcing class size regulations and instead embraced a ridiculous non-action from the grievance department. And make no mistake, they have no core convictions or beliefs beyond doing whatever the hell Leroy Barr says. Mulgrew? Who knows? He can't even sit through a meeting attended by anyone who hasn't signed the oath.

And make no mistake, Mulgrew and Barr won't be evaluated via junk science. They won't have oversized classes because they don't teach at all. Nor will the "special representatives," whatever the hell that title means. And while the UFT VPs and district reps will say they're teachers just like you, they are not. They teach one class per day, and as such are exempt from Danielson. They are rated S or U, just as we were before the changes they tout as improvements. If they really wanted to walk the walk, they'd insist to be rated just as we are. Better sit while you wait for that to happen.

And regarding the quote above, remember that UFT declared its seniority transfer program to be a great victory. It was, too, and I was able to use it to escape from a vindictive and short-sighted AP.  Yet they've replaced it with a system that creates ATRs, and Mulgrew has no problem telling the DA it's a great victory because more transfers take place.

Don't look at those thousands of ATRs behind that curtain. 

Then there are the ever-shifting stories about the components in Danielson. We won because we got all 22 of them and Bloomberg only wanted seven or eight. We won because we got only seven or eight and there used to be 22. So what if there are hundreds or thousands of oversized classes and we won't even reveal the number? We won a process in which 19 of 1800 schools can sit around and talk about them, and if that doesn't work we can always go back to the idiot arbitrators who let this system fester and rot in the first place. Plus oath-signing several chapter leaders on UFT payroll think it's a fabulous idea so what more are you gonna want?

UFT leadership is excellent at doublespeak. They're fabulous at excluding high schools utterly from all decisions.

As for leadership itself, they haven't got a clue. They don't do this job, they haven't done it in years, and there's no evidence they give a golly gosh darn about those of us who do.

Not necessarily. For one thing, they just voted down a class size resolution. They generated a lot of pseudo-argument that didn't make any sense, but what it comes down to is they haven't got the wherewithal to enforce a fundamental concept of our Contract--that class sizes are limited.

They pay lip service to the fact that they gave up money, 50 years ago, and perhaps it's true. But that's not at all relevant or important. Every teacher knows how hard it is to deal with an oversized class, but that doesn't phase anyone hanging around 52 Broadway, or any hanger-on on UFT payroll.

I asked how many oversized classes still remained in New York City. Instead of answering, they sent out the head of the grievance department to tell me she was scheduling some meetings somewhere that may or may not accomplish something sometime. You can imagine how much better my members must feel. Sure, their classes are oversized, but some UFT rep is having a meeting somewhere, sometime, maybe, and that makes everything better. It's a great honor to pay that person's salary and expense account.

For a while, I was seriously thinking of bringing the following to Executive Board or DA. I've decided against it, but if anyone else wants to borrow it and have them vote it down, have at it. It's an extreme modification of the original resolution, but I dropped the demand we not rehire any arbitrator who makes insane decisions on class size. You see, UFT leadership seems to feel if an arbitrator had a lucid moment in the distant past, whatever they follow it with in the future is absolutely hunky-dory. Also I made sure not to mention Donald Trump.

At the moment I wrote it, it seemed funny to me. But what UFT leadership did is not funny at all. It's not really necessary to make UFT Unity vote against Mom and apple pie because, in fact, they already have.

                                          Mom and Apple Pie Resolution

WHEREAS, the United Federation of Teachers absolutely supports motherhood; and

WHEREAS, many members of the United Federation of Teachers are mothers, and

WHEREAS, mothers are parents, and NYC parents have overwhelmingly stated, when surveyed, that class size is the most important factor in the education of their children; and

WHEREAS, we love apple pie; and

WHEREAS, we therefore wish to share it with our students, and

WHEREAS, the smaller their class sizes are the more pie they will get, be it therefore,

RESOLVED, that the United Federation of Teachers will vigorously enforce existing contractual class size regulations, and be it further

RESOLVED, that the United Federation of Teachers will advocate with the Mayor and the Chancellor to adhere to class size caps of 28 students in grades 1-3, as was done in earlier years; and be it further

RESOLVED, that the United Federation of Teachers will lobby the City Council to create a dedicated funding stream to lower class sizes, and be it further

RESOLVED, that the UFT will advocate with the Council to appoint a Commission to improve the school planning and siting process, as Class Size Matters and Make the Road have proposed, so that sufficient school space is built along with development and not years afterwards, and be it further

RESOLVED, that the UFT will publish lists of oversized classes and arbitrators’ resolutions as a matter of course in NY Teacher, and that UFT will have a standing committee dedicated to monitoring and correcting class size violations citywide.

I've been paying into COPE for a number of years now, at five bucks a paycheck. For a while, the UFT was hanging tough against the evaluation system. I was pretty happy they were finally showing a little backbone, so I invited a COPE rep to our school. He showed up over an hour late, leaving me to pretty much improvise our meeting. While he only managed to sign me and one of my delegates, he did field a few questions. One was when the hell are we gonna get a raise?

He said that Michael Mulgrew was very smart, and not to worry. He said that we would get our raise, because without it Bloomberg could not get an evaluation system. This statement hung with my members, and as you may recall, Mulgrew dumped the evaluation system into the hands of John King some time before we got a contract.  Members still come up to me asking to bring that guy back so they can throw stuff at him. I have thus far declined to do so.

But there is a vote on a Constitutional Convention coming up next year, and I think it's important we oppose that. I have searched for an organization that opposes it and found none. So the only game in town is COPE. I had been inclined to do a drive in my school at the end of January but my reservations get stronger each and every week.

Of course there are always the good folks who run NYSUT, who buy tables at Cuomo fundraisers, who give to Flanagan and his GOP buds. You know, the ones who said they opposed Common Core when they ran, but then said it was this or anarchy, the folks who said they opposed Cuomo but failed utterly to do so, the folks who said they opposed APPR but failed to do that too. In fact, the only legislative victory they can claim is the one that ensures them double pensions so they don't screw themselves the way they screwed Lee Cutler.

That was kind of a constant. And then, of course, there is their odd vision of strategic planning, which included pulling out all the stops for Hillary Clinton when she was running against Bernie Sanders. A lot of us wondered why we were endorsing someone who had the temerity to lecture us about "public charter schools," among other things. There is the massive and chronic failures to endorse a winning mayoral candidate.

I have a lot of friends around the state who swear they'll never put another dime into COPE. They're horrified by the unresponsiveness of NYSUT leadership, among other things. As a New York City high school teacher, I find it even more objectionable because I have no vote or voice in NYSUT. Why should my money go to fund them, and how can I ask my members to invest their hard-earned pay into an organization that doesn't even pretend to represent them?

The turning point, for me, was when I brought a class size resolution to the UFT and they essentially told me, my school,  tens of thousands of my colleagues, and 1.1 million students to go screw ourselves. I mean, if their objection was to the clause about the arbitrator, as they said, they could have moved to strike it. Clearly they objected to the entire thing, and nothing reinforced that to me more than their repetition of class size matters, but. Once someone says but you can safely disregard  everything and anything that precedes it.

Bottom line is I absolutely agree that we ought to stop the constitutional convention. But if anyone can screw up a campaign to stop it, it's the leadership of NYSUT and the United Federation of Teachers. Still, it's the only game in town as far as financing the anti-Constitutional Convention campaign.

So I'm on the fence, and man it can be painful sitting on a fence. What would you do if you were me?