Thanks to the blogger at ATR Adventures for alerting me to pieces I miss. This one, from the NY Post, is important for several reasons. First of all, it's important that they even bothered to speak with a real teacher and former ATR in the form of James Eterno. That's a step up from a lot of the nonsense I've seen on the same topic in Chalkbeat.

It's also important that the article attributed this demonstration, like others of its ilk, to a reformy astroturf group. In this case, it's charter-loving StudentsFirstNY, and offshoot of Michelle Rhee's group. Rhee, of course, has moved on to a gig that deals with actual fertilizer rather than what passes as information with her BFFs.

The big question, of course, is why the reformies are so preoccupied with the ATR, or Absent Teacher Reserve. Why, if they want to push privately run charter schools, do they even care whether or not we put these people to work?

I'd argue the answer is pretty basic. We are all ATRs waiting to happen. It's just a matter of being in the wrong place at the right time. I worked at John Adams High School for about seven years. It was just a simple twist of fate that I'm not there anymore. When Adams became a Renewal school, or whatever they were calling it that year, all the teachers had to reapply for their jobs. I recall reading the majority didn't bother. That could easily have been me. Or you.

Even the NY Times is piling on ATR teachers. I expected better from them, but I've been wrong before. Of course newspapers have unions, and they'd probably like them to go away. Who wants to deal with contracts when you could just cut pay, benefits, and rights? Once you do that, you can treat people any damn way you please, and keep more money for yourself. And that's directly relevant to us.

Right now, NY charter schools can certify their own teachers any way they want. It's a month of training, 40 hours in the classroom, or something, and then they are teachers, sort of. Charters have a turnover problem. They treat people like crap and people seem not to like it. People say it isn't sustainable if you want to, oh, get married, have children, live a life or anything like that.

This is tough for charter school bosses. In fact, I know charter teachers who've moved to public schools, and they aren't going back, ever. Despite all the things I write, and all the nonsense we endure, our jobs are a walk in the park compared to charter schools. Can you imagine having to take a cell phone home to answer questions after work? Imagine having to take bus rides to Albany at Eva's beck and call. Imagine having no contract, no rights, and no voice.

People who run charter schools have not only imagined, but also realized all those things. They see them as a prototype for all of us. They're reinforcing it with their limited certification. What if the charter teachers can't move to public school gigs? People with charter certification will be stuck. It's unlikely there's time to work in a charter and take night classes. After all, you have that phone to answer, and you've probably only slept eight minutes, what with making home visits and doing who knows what else.

The ATR was an egregious error in the 2005 contract, quite possibly the worst mistake the UFT ever made. We made a strong showing against the awful contract, but it wasn't good enough. The ATR is kind of our Achilles Heel. Bloomberg used it against us, demanding a time limit for ATRs. Leadership, to its credit, hung tough. Of course, this resulted in an inferior contract for us and a pattern that was the worst I've ever seen.

This notwithstanding, giving up the ATRs would place targets on all our backs. Close this school, close that school, wait a few months, and then fire everyone. Where do fired teachers go? Many I know have gone to charter schools. It's ironic that the people out marching against ATRs are perfectly OK with that.

Here's why it's OK--degrading and debasing middle class jobs is a win for the hedge funders and gazillioanaires who fund groups like StudentsFirst. They'll shed crocodile tears about how it's all about the children, but it's all about the money. Janus isn't enough for them. They want it all, they want it now, they want more, and they don't give a golly gosh darn if you go begging, eat cat food, or both.

That's the master plan, in fact. Crap jobs for you, crap jobs for the children they claim to love, no union, and bring back the good old days of the nineteenth century. Child labor isn't far behind.

I am consistently amazed at what Chalkbeat regards as expert advice. Evidently, if you have enough cash to start an astroturf group, or if Bill Gates gives it to you, that's good enough for them. I found this tidbit in my email today, courtesy of Chalkbeat:

COLLEGE READY? City officials are hoping to ensure at least two-thirds of its graduates are "college ready" but experts disagree about how exactly readiness should be measured.

Wow. Who are they gonna ask? Aaron Pallas? Longtime principal Carol Burris? Ravitch herself? Here's the very first "expert" opinion Chalkbeat offers:

...StudentsFirstNY, in a report released last week, argues the city should include in its calculation students who don’t make it to graduation, which would knock the citywide rate down to just over one third.

Now that's very interesting. It's particularly interesting because I'm always reading about these amazing charter schools at which 100% of their grads go to four-year colleges. Incredible right? But what these stories don't say, ever, is precisely which percentage of the students who started these schools didn't finish. (That includes the ever-popular Dr. Steve Perry. I don't like to brag, but he recently banned me on Twitter because I retweeted something critical of him. How dare I?)
 I mean, if you start out with 100 kids, and 50 don't graduate your high school, doesn't that mean that half weren't college ready even if the other half ended up in 4-year colleges?

But I don't read these stories on Chalkbeat. I generally see them on Gary Rubinstein's blog. You see, while Gary is a full-time teacher at Stuyvesant and a father of small children, when he gets a story he doesn't just go to Students First NY and ask what they think about it.  He does research,  crunches the numbers, writes graphs and charts to make them accessible to folks like me who wouldn't understand otherwise, and presents a picture we wouldn't have otherwise.

Now in fairness, Chalkbeat also went to "Research Alliance for New York City Schools, a nonpartisan center based at New York University." 30 seconds of research revealed they were funded by Gates and Walmart. So you get both sides of the story at Chalkbeat. Reformy Students First NY, and a Gates funded entity that Chalkbeat calls "nonpartisan." We should take their word, right? (The fact that they didn't bother to label Students First as partisan should count for nothing, I suppose.) They also ask someone from Gates-funded "Achieve." So if you want a real spectrum of Gates-funded views, Chalkbeat is your go-to.

Also in fairness, they do acknowledge another view:

Yet some critics argue that test scores are not the best way to judge whether students are ready for college. Studies show that a student’s GPA is often a better predictor of success in college than his or her SAT scores, for example, though GPA isn’t standardized across schools.

You see that? "Some critics argue," they say, though they can't be bothered to cite a single one. And though it says "studies show," it doesn't mention who made them, or interview a single person who believes it. But then we resolve this issue.

Meanwhile, groups like StudentsFirstNY believe a metric that counts only graduates, rather than all students who start in ninth grade, artificially inflates the numbers.

Of course you have to not only give the last word to the astroturfers, but also fail again to mention they are partisan. Because journalistic standards. 

Though there are tens of thousands of teachers, though said teachers have a union, Chalkbeat New York could not be bothered asking them. Though Gary Rubinstein actually is an expert, and though he actually does research, they haven't bothered asking him either.

Chalkbeat NY's double standards are showing, and it appears they can't even be bothered to pretend anymore.

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.

It's not easy to be right all the time. I'm not. I make mistakes, and when I do, I have to say things like, "I'm sorry. I screwed up." I've had to say that to students, to friends and family, and at times I've said it right here in this space.

But the great thing about being union leadership is never having to say you're sorry. For example, when APPR came out, it was fantastic. Mulgrew boasted of how the great thing about it was that we could negotiate local measures. How cool was that? And then, when in fact he could not negotiate local measures, he left it in the hands of the reformiest of the reformiest, John King. And after the system came out, Bloomberg said he'd gotten the most vindictive system in the state and he didn't have to lay out a cent for it.

I remember this distinctly, because the UFT had been holding out for a while, which I thought was a good thing. In fact, when a UFT rep showed up to a meeting at our school, he told us leadership was very smart, and that we'd certainly get a contract. Otherwise, he said, Bloomberg couldn't have his evaluation. It had to be part of the contract. Now this particular UFT rep could have been improvising, but I doubt it. It turned out we got the evaluation system well before we got a contract, and I don't need to remind readers of this blog that we're gonna be waiting on money most city workers got in 2010 until 2020. I'm amazed the Post hates de Blasio so much. He, the lefty liberal whatever, negotiated the most meager contract in my living memory and the Post should be kissing his ring.

Of course, we renegotiated the evaluation system. The first time, Bloomberg wanted only 7 Danielson domains but we held out for all of them and it was a great victory. The next time, we negotiated only 8 Danielson domains and that was also a great victory. One thing I've learned about leadership is that absolutely every move they make is a great victory. Another thing I've noticed is that leadership judges themselves and their critics by the same criteria. Since they have so many great victories, anyone who disagrees is crazy, and ought to have their faces punched and pushed in the dirt. Such are the life lessons of Michael Mulgrew, regularly shared with the faithful at the Delegate Assembly, and of course at the conventions, attended by only the elite 800 who swear to abide by said lessons.

At a recent DA, Mulgrew ridiculed those who disagreed with junk science APPR by giving percentages of bad ratings. It was only one or two percent ineffective, and 5 or 6 developing. This was a good thing, said our leader, not only because it was a small number, but also because it was a bigger number than much of the state. Our model, therefore, was a model for the state. No one pointed out what it was like to live with a bad rating, and no one pointed out that ratings seem to be lower this year than last. Of course, we won't know for sure until next September or so, but that's the trend among teachers with whom I speak, at least.

And, of course, since everything is wonderful, anyone who opposes APPR is nuts. That includes me and pretty much every single teacher I know. It includes teachers with ratings up and down the spectrum. It certainly includes the likes of Diane Ravitch, Gary Rubinstein, Aaron Pallas, and Leonie Haimson, and pretty much anyone who actually looks at the research and considers it. But we're all insane, according to UFT leadership. They say the system is great.

On the other hand, Cuomo says it's baloney because not enough teachers are losing their jobs. Amazingly, at the absolute lowest point of his popularity, he manages to push a new system through the GOP Senate and the Democratic Assembly. And though Cuomo pretty much got everything he wanted, I got an email from Michael Mulgrew stating that this was yet another victory. Apparently, though there are only two factors in evaluation and testing is one of them, testing does not constitute 50% of evaluation. Diane Ravitch says, since anyone rated ineffective in testing cannot be rated effective overall, that it constitutes 100%. Mulgrew says it's less than 50, on what basis I have no idea whatsoever.

It must be fantastic to be in a position where absolutely everything that happens is an unmitigated victory. I can tell you that I don't know a single teacher outside of the Unity Caucus who feels we've won anything. Maybe, in retrospect, fighting only for the budget and ignoring APPR was not the optimal strategy. Maybe tweeting up a storm, which Mulgrew himself didn't even bother with, did not achieve our goal. Maybe Andrew Cuomo does not, in fact, live in fear of hashtags.

But here's a fact. NYC teachers are now facing our third evaluation system in three years. We've studied the first, and we've studied the second. We've danced this way and that. There are few things more senseless and demoralizing than such an unstable and unpredictable system, particularly one based on junk science. It is most certainly not an improvement in any way over that which it replaced, except for those who salivate at the prospect of firing working teachers, like, for example, the director of reformy Students First NY.

When she thinks this is a victory, and Mulgrew thinks it's a victory, and virtually no working teacher agrees, we're in an odd place indeed. Will the 80 plus percent of working teachers who can't be bothered to fill an X in a UFT election be moved to do so?

Clearly Michael Mulgrew doesn't think so. And there he may genuinely be right. When people have no hope, voting seems a waste of time.

The question is, do we want a teaching force with no hope?

In California, a bunch of rich guys got together and pushed a lawsuit designed to shoot teacher tenure right smack between the eyes. After all, if you can't get the law changed, you go wherever your wallet takes you. So in the case of Vergara they've won for the moment, and those awful teachers will have fewer job protections if appeals aren't sustained.

Here in NY it's a little tougher. First of all, the arguments in California were crap to begin with. Firing more teachers will not address the conditions in America that lead children to fail in school. But it's a whole lot cheaper and more efficient to blame teachers than deal with poverty, or people who need to work multiple jobs to barely keep their heads above water. After all, how will Whitney Tilson's hedge fund profit from Walmart and McDonald's if they have to pay workers a living wage?

So here in New York, we heard a great deal from self-appointed education/ legal expert Campbell Brown about how we needed to get rid of teacher tenure. But wait--before Campbell Brown could do it, another self-appointed education/ legal expert, Mona Davids, filed a suit. So the question now becomes which one of these people is out to get us more?

It's tough to say. Brown is married to some bigshot on Students First NY, and is an ex-talking head on CNN. Davids runs something called the NY Parents Union, and vacillates between supporting charters, supporting public education, and going for the throat of working teachers. It appears the whole attacking teachers thing garners more attention this week, so that's what the NY Parents Union is doing. Who knows when they meet, or who's a member other than some unsuccessful Staten Island politician whose name I can't remember? Like Brown, she has a group, it has a name, and that's good enough for the papers.

But there's still the question of who hates working teachers more. How can this be settled? Can they wait until the first day of school, get a bushel of Jersey tomatoes, and see which one can hit the most teachers? I'd say they should save that for when they go after the Jersey teachers, but neither of them is from Jersey. Of course they could both move to Jersey and race to see who can file the suit fastest. That would suit me.

Perhaps they could have a stereotype contest. Which one of them can find the most outrageous story and manage to tar as many working teachers as possible with it? I have to give Brown the edge at this, since it's pretty much her MO. But I think Davids is a quick learner and can give Brown a run for her money if given half a chance. One of the great things about this is that you don't really have to prove anything. I regularly see in the press that the DOE agencies had already found them guilty. But few people understand that OEO is kind of like the police. The police aren't really supposed to arrest people unless they think they're guilty. But guilt is decided by a judge. In our system arbitrators judge.

I don't really care which one of them wins. I fully support tenure. Those of us who choose this profession do so because we care about children. We speak up when they're neglected, even if said neglect is committed by those who supervise us or sign our paychecks. That's our job.

And neither Brown nor Davids is any help whatsoever.

Sure it's barbaric to keep young children in padded cells. It's clearly a cruel way to treat a child, and it's very tough to see how that is not an abject violation of Chancellor's Regulations against corporal punishment and abuse. Of course, rules are for the little people. Were a UFT teacher to toss a kid in a padded cell, you'd better believe there'd be an investigation, and very likely a removal from the classroom.

But KIPP says they're gonna just keep on tossing kids into padded cells. If they can be believed, which given their ridiculous sense of priorities, I highly doubt, they've only tossed three kids into the padded cell so far. If, in fact, they've only used it three times, why on earth do they even need it? But let's say they're right.

It appears two of the three kids who they admit to placing in the cell are leaving their venerable institution. This means they're headed for public schools. So, basically, all KIPP needs to do to get rid of kids who are troublesome, or kids who don't get scores that make them look good, is to toss them into the handy padded cell. Then they'll be traumatized, their parents will pull them out, and the kids will go to public schools.

If there are problems with the kids, the papers can blame those awful unionized teachers who do nothing but complain. Not only is the KIPP school easier to manage, but whatever problems those kids have can be blamed on the public schools.

Legal expert Campbell Brown is all over the cases of teachers who've been vindicated, some of whom should never have faced charges in the first place. And yet, despite her feigned outrage over cases about which she knows little or nothing, she's spoken not a word about this. Where is her mysterious Transparency Project.

E4E and Students First and all the Astroturfers were out in force the other night, supporting Common Core, a program that's never been field tested anywhere. They were doing cartwheels in support of rating teachers via junk science, and even managed to get almost every speaking spot at King's forum the other night.

Yet they're also completely silent about this outrageous treatment of young children by a charter chain school. Public school teachers would never treat children like this. And never doubt for one moment who really places children first.

It is us, the parents and teachers of public school children, and we dedicate our lives to these kids. We don't take money from Bill Gates. We just love them. That's why we want the same treatment for our kids that John King buys for his, over at the Montessori school.

It's interesting to read the piece in Gotham Schools about Students First NY. You wouldn't know from the piece that this was a Rhee-sponsored reformy entity, since that doesn't merit mention. What is mentioned, of course, is that this article is about a complaint that has not actually been filed. The most outrageous thing is the headline, which blares the preposterous conclusion that the astroturf group is now a Bloomberg adversary.

Ostensibly, the group's complaint is that there are more teachers rated unsatisfactory in low SES schools. This, they contend, indicates that there are, therefore, more bad teachers in these schools than others. Ironically, they're one of the most outspoken opponents of the S/U system they're now trusting made decisions worth complaining about. But when it will garner them an article in Rupey's NY Post or Gotham Schools, who cares about principle?

Of course, when your national leader is someone who finds it hilarious to duct tape the mouths of young children, principle may not be what motivates you anyway.

I didn't realize these schools were dispensing more U-ratings, but it's fairly easy to guess why. For one thing, there is a direct correlation between low-SES and school closings. Schools with high percentages of high needs kids tend not to get high test scores and are therefore considered failing. It's the school's fault the kids have learning disabilities, and it's the school's fault the kids can't speak English. No excuses. Just because the kid arrived from the Dominican Republic four days ago, that's no reason he can't write that essay about American history.

In any case, should you be unfortunate enough to be the principal of one of these so-called failing schools, you are sorely in need of a scapegoat. Since you can't blame the scores on the fact that the kids don't know English, someone has to take responsibility. Now it can't be you, or you'll be working at Kinko's next week. Therefore, it has to be those teachers. If Mr. NYC Educator's kids can't speak English, it must be his fault, so give him a U-rating. That'll show Chancellor Walcott you're tough.

After all, Mayor Bloomberg has publicly bemoaned the dearth of U-ratings for teachers. He wants more, and you'd better deliver. This is particularly urgent if your test scores are nothing to jump up and down about.

Clearly this complaint is ridiculous. Even if it had merit, which it certainly does not, it's based on a system that no longer exists.  Bloomberg will not spend one moment being upset about this. Anything that makes teachers look bad works for him. Anything that degrades and discourages them is just fine in his book. And make no mistake, that's precisely what Students First exists to enable. Students First means Adults Last, and when the kids they shed those crocodile tears over grow up, they'll be just as screwed as the rest of us.

Hardly something to aspire to, if you ask me.

We met with Micah Lasher, the voice of Students First NY on Twitter. Lasher angrily denied the UFT charge that Campbell Brown issued a "blood libel" by saying UFT wanted sexual offenders in the classroom.

"This is clearly a garden-variety libel," said an angry Lasher. "It's our policy to mischaracterize union positions, but to do so in a straightforward fashion. We strongly object to the hyperbolic statements issued by the union, and demand an immediate retraction."

"Furthermore," Lasher continued, "the attack on Campbell Brown is overtly sexist. Brown is a woman, and it's clear that anyone who criticizes her must hate women. Furthermore, Brown is a parent, so anyone who questions her motives hates parents too."

When asked whether or not this was slanderous, Lasher smiled faintly and nodded almost imperceptibly. "But it's not blood libel," he insisted.

Lasher explained that his organization was encouraged by columns like the one in the NY Post, explaining that unions were no longer cool. He said he hoped this trend would continue. Things like health care, weekends, collective bargaining, overtime pay, due process, minimum wage, and child labor were hampering the economy and he, for one, was glad to hear they were on their way out. Sure, this would be inconvenient for working adults. "But we can't worry about them any more," said Lasher.

"It's for the children," he continued. "Once we change the law to make sure that Bloomberg can fire anyone he likes, on either genuine or fabricated charges, no matter how independent arbitrators rule, we can take a look at the system overall."

When asked what that meant, Lasher replied that judges and juries were not perfect, and that the only way to ensure justice was to leave the final decisions in all criminal cases to experts like Michael Bloomberg, Bill Gates, or the Koch Brothers. In times of crisis, there's no time to bother with studies and evidence, said Lasher, and the only way to help the children would be to allow these experts to act immediately, without time-consuming and troublesome restraints.

"Reform is needed now, and can't wait on red tape," said Lasher. "Once we can get the public off this innocent until proven guilty nonsense, which is also no longer cool, we can start to really get things done."