Every week or so I get an email from a UFT rep whose job is organizing. I guess that's why his newsletter is called The Organizer. I'm urged to share it with my staff, but I prefer to write my own. It has a lot of recurring features, so it tends to be repetitive. I usually don't find anything worth sharing.

This week, though, it had something that opened my eyes just a little. That was a fairly impressive feat since I opened my laptop at around six AM. I expected to just scroll down and close the thing. But there it was, and it had me up and blogging almost involuntarily.

I was pretty surprised to see this piece from a NYSUT email included in The Organizer:

It goes on, but you get the gist. Of course I don't disagree about APPR. I signed the linked petition and I recommend you do too. I'm just surprised at the UFT's willingness to take absolutely any position at any time, with no regard whatsoever for past positions. Am I the only one who remembers what a proud deed it was when we got our first junk science system, and how Mulgrew himself had helped write the law? Am I the only one who remembers hearing how smart it was to get the whole thing enshrined in law?

Of course, that argument was no longer so popular when Andrew Cuomo and the Heavy Hearted Assembly redid the whole thing a year later. Cuomo said his own brainchild was "baloney" because not enough teachers got bad ratings. We needed to rate more teachers badly. That was Cuomo's rationale for pushing the new system.

So they changed it. The UFT argument then became the matrix. The matrix is gonna make everything better because it's gonna make it tough to get an ineffective rating, unless of course you do get an ineffective rating. Then we'll all try to look the other way and pretend it didn't happen, I suppose.

In any case, I've opposed APPR since its inception. I'm in good company, including Diane Ravitch, Leonie Haimson, and the American Statistical Association, just to mention a few. Yet when I objected to it at chapter leader meetings, I was criticized and ridiculed. I was overreacting. I was Chicken Little. I'm trying to recall how many times I've heard about how few people got bad ratings, and how the system was therefore an improvement. I've heard it from UFT leadership and school leadership.

Of course, very shortly thereafter I'd get to hear face to face from the people who got bad ratings. You won't be surprised to hear that they failed to see the wonder and beauty of this system. Now there is a new wrinkle that I've heard Mulgrew speak of. It's not value-added, but rather showing student progress. We'll work out ways to do this, via portfolios or something.

It won't surprise you to hear that I've asked people who study these things, and they've told me there is no research whatsoever to support these ideas for rating teachers. In fact, I know of no studies whatsoever saying anything about it at all. Yet I'm regularly told at the DA and elsewhere that it's a big improvement. I've also heard, from Mulgrew on down, that anyone who opposes APPR supports total control for the principal.

That's what you call a black and white fallacy--it suggests there is only one alternative to this proposal. Beyond that, it fails to acknowledge the pernicious nature of this system, to wit, allowing the burden of proof to be on the teacher at the 3020a hearing. That's one more feature of the system UFT leadership has been pushing as the best thing since sliced bread--not the feature, of course. They generally fail to acknowledge it, although one UFT Unity member on Twitter insisted that gave members more control. This is the same guy who got up and insisted he spoke to two random ATRs  in one day who loved the new incentive.

There has been a little space between NYSUT and UFT on this issue. For example, when the Mulgrew-endorsed toppling of Richard Iannuzzi as NYSUT President happened, Andrew Pallotta's Revive NYSUT claimed to oppose APPR. They blamed Iannuzzi for it. Though he did it together with Mulgrew, they never, ever criticized Mulgrew, nor did they vocally oppose it at inception. The hypocrisy was palpable.

Now I'm curious about this thing we're gonna do next year, if there is ever an agreement. Will there be portfolios and who knows what else in the future of NYC schools? To me, it seems like a whole lot of extra paperwork for already overburdened teachers. This would not be my preferred course of action with Janus hanging over our heads.

The APPR system has left teacher morale lower than its been at any point since I began over thirty years ago. Thus far, every so-called improvement has failed to improve anything. I'm not sure that the NYSUT position precisely mirrors that of UFT leadership.

Nonetheless, it takes a whole lot of chutzpah to simply take something you've consistently supported and rationalized, then call it useless. It's particularly egregious when you offer absolutely no explanation as to why you've changed your mind.

How are you supposed to trust people who do things like that?

I was pretty surprised to read that the NY Regents are passing policy without the input of the public. I mean, that's a pretty serious breach of basic democracy, isn't it? On the other hand, I've been to a whole lot of public hearings about schools and school closings, and I've spoken at them too. Several were at Jamaica High School, closed based on false statistics, according to this piece in Chalkbeat.

The thing about public hearings is this--yes, members of the public get to speak. In fact, at Jamaica and several other school closing hearings, I don't remember a single person getting up to speak in favor of school closings. I've also been to multiple meetings of the PEP under Bloomberg where the public was roundly ignored. In fact, Bloomberg fired anyone who contemplated voting against doing whatever they were told. While he didn't make them sign loyalty oaths, the effect was precisely the same.

State hearings are different, of course. When former NY Education Commissioner Reformy John King decided to explain to NY that Common Core was the best thing since sliced bread, he planned a series of public forums. However, after the public said in no uncertain terms they disagreed, he canceled them, saying they'd been taken over by "special interests." The special interests, of course, were parents and teachers. He may have implied they were controlled by the unions, but of course the union leadership actually supported the same nonsense he was espousing.

In fact, the only meeting King went to where he found support actually was taken over by special interests, to wit, Students First NY. Only one non-special interest actually got to speak, and that was my friend Katie Lapham. Other than that it was a pro-high-stakes testing party. Doubtless this was King's view of a worthy public forum, and given that it's taken until now for Chalkbeat to stand up to the lack of forums, I have to question whether it's theirs too.

The big change Chalkbeat points to is a link claiming that the Regents "wiped out" main elements of the teacher evaluation law. If you bother to follow the link, you learn that this is a reference to the fake moratorium on high stakes testing, which the article itself later admits to be limited to the use of Common Core testing in grades 3-8. The fact that junk science rules absolutely everywhere else, and will in fact be increased in importance next year, is evidently of no relevance whatsoever.

While Chalkbeat acknowledges these changes were urged on by Governor Cuomo's task force, it fails utterly to make connections as to what forced Cuomo to start a task force, let alone pretend he gives a crap about education or public school teachers. This, of course, was a massive opt-out, in which over 20% of New York's parents told their children not to sit for tests that Cuomo himself referred to as meaningless. But rather than speak to any of its leaders, Chalkbeat seeks comment from a Gates-funded group I've never heard of called Committee on Open Government.

After all, why go to Jeanette Deutermann, or Leonie Haimson, or Jia Lee, or Beth Dimino, or Katie Lapham, when you can get someone who's taken Gates money? And just to round out the forum, Chalkbeat goes to Reformy John King's successor, MaryEllen Elia, who's taken boatloads of Gates money and is therefore an expert on pretty much whatever.

Chalkbeat also makes the preposterous assertion that the Regents allowing children of special needs a route to graduation should have been more gradual because schools were prepping them for tests they didn't need. While that may be true, this did not remove their option of taking those tests. Announcing the allowance this year and enabling it, say, next year, would've helped absolutely no one. You don't need to go to a Gates-funded expert to figure that out.

While it may have been nice to have public hearings, the fact is the public has gotten up and spoken, and without that, none of these changes would have occurred. It's remarkable that Chalkbeat NY doesn't know that.

UFT Unity really managed to put its foot in its mouth with its Delegate Assembly handout. I kind of suspected some opt-out activists would not care for that particular message, laughable and poorly thought out though it  was. Here's one commenter, for example, who found little to love about it:

Oh Michael, Michael, Michael. Now you went and did it. You stayed in the closet for four long years, pretending that you were respectful of the work of 250,000 parents and educators to save your profession and protect public schools. Out of fear of your regime beginning to crumble, you have decided to come out and proclaim in all your glory that you despise the opt out movement and all it represents. Let me be the first to let out a sigh of relief that the pretense is over. Now you can come at us with fists flying in typical Mulgrew fashion. Thank you for being you.

~Jeanette Brunelle Deutermann, Opt-out parent activist 

Others are struck by the idiosyncracies in UFT Unity behavior:

What's actually funny is, the UFT UNITY delegates voted unanimously at last year's RA to support opt out. Leroy made a big production of going to the microphone with Beth Dimino. Wait, I'm sorry, it's not funny, it's sad.

~Michael Lillis, President, Lakeland Federation of Teachers

Evidently they were for it before they were against it. But not everyone is familiar with the Unity philosophy that everything they do is right, and it makes no difference whatsoever if what they say today contradicts what they did yesterday. Thus, whatever they do is right. Of course it sounds odd, but there are precedents for that sort of thinking.

Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal

~Richard Nixon

Alas, not everyone can accept the premise that just because Mulgrew, another President, says it's so, that it is. That notion has not gained wide acceptance outside the Unity bubble.   

Also, the logic of "we have to test 95% or more of our students to get grant money" is the same logic that led to "we have to adopt Common Core so we get Race to the Top money." Just administering all these tests every year costs far more than the grant money this flyer points to as the reward for testing our students

~Eric Severson, UFT Chapter Leader, Clara Barton High School

The grant money, of course, is up to $75,000 for 6% of applicants, who may or may not get the 75K, or way less, since we haven't got an "as little as" figure just yet. Of course others are outraged There is an opt-out movement out there, and they're tired of being talked down to. If they wanted that, they could go to John King, Andy Cuomo or Bill Gates rather than the people whose jobs, ostensibly, entail representing them. 

Disgraceful! Opting-out gives us power to change the system. No kid should take these tests. Shame on @UFT Unity. https://t.co/rtEba1pnW7

— CriticalClassrooms (@lapham_katie) June 16, 2016

Now this is how Unity hopes people will react:. 

How dare MORE fight for professional autonomy and against a corporate driven agenda! Who do you think you are?

~Leonie Haimson, Class Size Matters

OK, well not really. That's what's known as "irony." While Unity deems themselves clever to call us "feckless and reckless," and make puns about MORE, other people are actually thinking about this stuff. Unfortunately for UFT Unity, none of them have signed that loyalty oath. The thing about Unity folk is they hang around people who've signed oaths all the time and aren't very well-equipped to deal with those who have not. And some who haven't signed the oath get right to the point:

This letter is disgraceful. @beth_dimino @Refusethetests @JeanetteDeut @LIOptOut @teka21bat @zamekhta @sullio https://t.co/yNSBMXQBu7

— brian stpierre (@Sashammy) June 15, 2016

Unity leaders aren't used to having to listen to people like that. Maybe we need to forgive them. They know not what they do. Sadly, it's kind of their job to know what they do, and that places the UFT in a precarious situation. It's my inclination to work with them rather than against them. But I won't be silent when attacked. Neither I nor MORE/ New Action nor opt-out is stupid enough to accept strawman arguments and ad hominem nonsense. 

This propaganda piece by the UFT's re-elected Unity leadership is really a disgrace and seeks to undermine the teachers who have stood by NYC parents to support our choice to refuse to have our children be subjected to these inferior test and punish policies. This needs to be called out as the smear campaign that does not respect the decision those 240,000 children's parents across the state made on their child's behalf. So is Mulgrew saying we parents are reckless and feckless too?? Please share widely and support MORE Caucus teachers. The election may be over, but the movement is not!

~Janine Sopp, NYC Opt-out parent activist

UFT Unity now has a choice. They can climb down from that high horse and work with us to help students, teachers and communities. Or they can tell the idiots who write for them to get to work developing more pompous, disingenuous, logic-free nonsense. 

I hope they at least give it a little thought.

 I was pretty shocked when NY State Regents unanimously nominated MaryEllen Elia to be NY State Commissioner of Education. For one thing, I had heard Michael Mulgrew speak of the great hope he had in the Regents to modify the new and draconian APPR law. Given that, I was surprised they'd select someone with such enthusiasm for testing, junk science, and all things reformy. It makes me really wonder exactly how much interest (if any) the Regents have in doing the right thing.

It's true Elia gave lip service to being a teacher, and to seeing herself as a teacher. But every teacher I know abhors the new system that judges us, now even moreso, on student tests. It's not even a secret anymore that the state takes these tests and manipulates the cut scores so they show whatever it is the state feels like proving that week. The only teachers I know of who support this stuff at all are those in Educators 4 Excellence, you know, the ones who take Gates money just like Elia did in Florida. And while their leaders, Evan Stone and Whoever the Other One Is, were briefly teachers, they aren't anymore.

And that's exactly who Elia went to speak to yesterday. And let's be clear--that is a political statement. If Elia wanted to speak to teachers, she could have tried for an audience with NYSUT or UFT. There's certainly precedent for reformies getting audiences with unions, like Gates addressing the AFT. (When that happened, Randi Weingarten seemed to encourage the troops in ridiculing the protesters. Gates thanked AFT by trashing teacher pensions just days later.)

.@MaryEllenElia says she is a commissioner who will never bash teachers #e4eNY

— Ben Chapman (@NYDNBenChapman) August 20, 2015

That's great to hear. I hate it when politicians, op-eds and editorial boards bash teachers. I'm acutely aware of it because it happens almost every single day. Teachers don't want to be accountable because they object to having their jobs dependent on junk science. Teachers shouldn't talk to one another in teacher lounges. Teacher unions should be punched in the face.

Of course, the clever politicians who bash us often differentiate between teachers and teacher unions. "I would never bash teachers. I love teachers. My mother was a teacher. Yes, I had a mother." They blather on as though only Satanists are in teacher unions, and they only hate Satan. I suppose someone should inform those pols that teachers are in teacher unions, and that when they punch unions in the face they punch us in the face. Of course Elia hasn't yet broadcasted her intention to punch teacher unions in the face. Instead, she came up with this little gem:

.@MaryEllenElia says any teacher who encourages opt-out is unethical #e4eNY

— Ben Chapman (@NYDNBenChapman) August 20, 2015

Now, here's the thing about stereotypes--they are always hurtful, and they are always wrong. It doesn't even matter if they're positive. And make no mistake, Elia's statement is not positive at all. She's calling me and thousands of my brothers and sisters unethical. She's saying Diane Ravitch, Leonie Haimson, Carol Burris, Jeanette Deuterman, Beth Dimino and Jia Lee are promoting evil. And yet it's Elia herself who takes a salary several times that of any working teacher to carry out an agenda based on junk science.

It's Elia who supports giving every child in New York the same test. It doesn't matter to Elia if that results in a developmentally inappropriate curriculum. If the kids have learning disabilities, if they don't speak English, if they're malnourished, if their parents both work 200 hours a week, if they live in rotating shelters, too bad for them. The State has spoken.

Just because you're selective about the group of teachers you bash, you're still a teacher-basher. And with all due respect, I've seen absolutely no evidence that MaryEllen Elia is in any position whatsoever to lecture anyone about ethics.

I had no idea the PROSE programs entailed enabling higher class sizes until the other day when Leonie Haimson tweeted it to Randi Weingarten. Leo Casey is consistently attentive to and protective of Randi, and I told Leonie he would claim she opposed teacher empowerment. I knew this because when my friend Julie Cavanagh opposed the latest substandard UFT Contract, that was exactly what he told her.

A few hours later, voila!

@leoniehaimson @TeacherArthurG @pfh1964 @lanecindy1234 @rweingarten Shame that u attack PROSE that empowers teachers to make positive change

— Leo Casey (@LeoECasey) July 19, 2015

When you misrepresent your opponent's argument, that's called a strawman fallacy. Leonie did not, in fact, say teachers shouldn't be empowered. Nor did Julie. When you oppose a contract containing an agreement for two-tier due process, when you oppose an agreement to wait an extra decade for the raise most unions got before 2010, when you disagree that ATRs should be fired for missing two interviews about which they may or may not be aware, it doesn't mean you oppose teacher empowerment. Who wants to be empowered in that fashion? Not me.

I certainly support teacher empowerment. As far as class size, it would be great to be able to dictate smaller class sizes. Because of what I teach, I've had classes ranging from 15 to the contractual max. In fact, I've had classes up to 50 in ESL, back when I was new and didn't know any better. I've also taught classes of 50 as a music teacher. I know about big classes, and I know about small classes. Class size matters.

Leonie Haimson also thinks class size matters, which is why she's an advocate for public school parents and students. That's pretty much her job. She wanted to know why the School Leadership Team of parents, admin, teachers and students didn't get a vote.

@leoniehaimson @pfh1964 @TeacherArthurG @lanecindy1234 @rweingarten @UFT Just curious Is there one real parent in school who has criticized?

— Leo Casey (@LeoECasey) July 19, 2015

This is pretty interesting. Just last week, Leo was angry at those of us who opposed the Hillary nomination. There was a scientific survey, he said, and we were questioning the results. I still haven't seen the survey, or the pool from which it was given, but how dare I? This week things were different. The fact is, parents do not get a vote on SBOs, be they PROSE or otherwise.

Leo harped on this quite a bit. Evidently, if there is a poll or a vote, you are not to question it. That's the way it is. If you don't accept it, well, you think only you and your friends should make the decision and you therefore don't believe in democracy. If there is not a poll or a vote, however, it's on you to actually find out how people feel, all by yourself.  The standing assumption, evidently, is UFT leadership is always right no matter what. But you know what? There was a vote. In fact, there were several, and they all said the same thing.

.@LeoECasey @TeacherArthurG @pfh1 @rweingarten reducing class size #1 priority of NYC parents in DOE surveys; sorry if @UFT doesn't agree

— leonie haimson (@leoniehaimson) July 19, 2015

Now you could assume, from what I say, that I oppose SBOs. Someone did.

There's one in my school this year. I'm pleased to tell you it passed at 97%. @rweingarten @UFT

— Arthur Goldstein (@TeacherArthurG) July 19, 2015

I most certainly do not oppose SBOs. Nor do I oppose teacher empowerment. Like Leonie, I oppose unreasonably large class sizes. If you want to empower teachers, give them the option to have smaller class sizes, even if the city has to pay for it. Don't tell me the only way to reduce what is already the highest class size in the state for some is to dump others into lecture-style classes. Don't tell me that some kids need attention and others do not.

Here's a fact--class size limits have remained the same in NYC for over 50 years, and class sizes themselves have been rising for 8 years. They are at a 15-year high in early grades. While UFT leadership devotes valuable lip service to it from time to time, they have done absolutely nothing to change it. I think some parts of the contract ought not to be messed with. In particular, class size ought to be inviolate. It's too high already.

Looking over some of these PROSE proposals, I note that it may be the teacher's option to teach oversized classes. That is simply a terrible idea. Can you imagine being a probationary teacher and having the principal ask you whether or not you want to teach an oversized class? What are you gonna say? In fact, given the terror many of us feel at the junk science evaluation system, which tenured teacher wants to face that?

There is a good reason why the chapter leader is given the task of grieving oversized classes. Once, I filed a grievance over them, and an administrator approached me. She said she asked Mr. Smith which kid he wanted removed from his class, and he said he wanted all of them to stay. What should she do? I told her it was not my problem, and it was not Mr. Smith's problem either. She overloaded the class, and it was on her to fix it.

When the chapter leader takes care of it, you don't have to pick which kid leaves your class. And you can't be made to feel guilty about it. Furthermore, you don't have to worry about the principal asking you for a waiver so he can dump extra kids in your class. You don't need to be put in the position of having to turn down his request to add students to what is already the highest class size in NY State.

Make no mistake--that is teacher empowerment. Allowing for exceptions to an already inadequate rule is precisely the opposite.

Sometimes Manhattanites venture forth into the outer boroughs, and Leonie Haimson was brave enough to travel to Francis Lewis High School for our Protect Our Schools event. Leonie tells us that enormous sucking sound we keep hearing is Governor Cuomo's vacuum cleaner. He just can't wait to suck every drop of support from our children and place it on a platter for his reformy pals. Leonie gives chapter and verse below.

Leonie Haimson has a great new piece pointing out that the preposterous things we demand from American children don't apply to the kids of the President of the United States. Sasha and Malia attend the Sidwell Friends School, where they are not subject to high-stakes tests, and where they enjoy small class sizes. Obama was very vocal in criticizing Romney for opposing reasonable class sizes, yet his Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, did the same thing months earlier.

One would think this would suggest a change in Education Secretaries for term two, but one would be mistaken. Many public school parents and working teachers are upset with his insane and non-science-based policies, but it appears we're headed for more of the same. I often question why the NEA and AFT supported a second term for such policies and I get varying responses. One is that Romney would have been worse. Indeed, Romney supported not only all the crap Obama supports, but also vouchers. However, Obama's education policies are pretty bad, as evidenced by supporters like Jeb Bush.

The other talking point I get from union reps is that Obama has said many positive things about class size, but again he never refuted Duncan's contradictory statements. More importantly, there has been absolutely no action to support these words. Also, Obama has spoken out against excessive testing, but policies like Race to the Top and Common Core will almost certainly exacerbate the problem. Sad to say, his words look very much like lip service, and, unless they are accompanied by deeds, will surely be meaningless.

Would it have been tougher for a GOP President to have enabled such things? Probably. Democrats may have opposed such nonsense on principle had it been suggested by a Republican. But we are Barack Obama's Sister Souljah moment, and nonsensical VAM evaluations will surely result in teachers being fired for no reason whatsoever. However, now that Democrats have jumped on the "reform" bandwagon, this is a tough issue for us. Until these programs fail, as they certainly will, and enough people notice it, which may or may not happen, we're stuck here.

We missed a golden opportunity by not making demands before endorsing Obama. LGBT and immigrant groups extracted concessions from this President, and I marvel day after day why our union leaders, in what promised to be a very close election, did not deem this worth negotiating over.