It's remarkable to read about how you get all your seniors admitted to college. If you're a charter school, of course, you simply dump every student who isn't making it back into the public schools. If you're a public school it's a little more difficult. Fortunately, it's more or less the Wild West over in DC.

First of all, you have this ridiculous evaluation system. You can rate teachers ineffective and get rid of them. Anyone who doesn't play ball is thrown out of the game. In NYC, we worry about vindictive administrators. In DC, that's probably true too. But if you factor in Campbell's Law, which basically says the more pressure there is, the more corruption there is, it's easy to understand how admin bows to pressure and allows any damn thing to happen.

NYC has been a little more progressive on this, though Sue Edelman at the Post is always turning over rocks to find sleazy principals who cheat to juke the stats. For those who bother following rules, it's a little more difficult to paint failure as success. I recall online nonsense being substituted for class time, including PE. I marvel at how you can answer a bunch of questions, or get your smart girlfriend to answer them for you, and earn credit.

I'm sure there are still makeup rules, and they're still nonsense. But they aren't anything compared to this DC scam, in which everyone passed no matter what. Basically, you didn't have to go to school until they threatened to take you to court. Pretty sweet deal if all you want to do is come in now and then to say hello. In fact, it's a pretty sweet deal even if you don't. Just drop in once in a while, graduate, and somehow get accepted to college.

I'm not sure how well you'd do in college if your work ethic entailed showing up only when the alternative was going to court. I'm pretty sure you just flunk out and lose your tuition if you can't be bothered to show up and do work. There aren't any worksheets or online programs to help with that.

Actually, over the years I've had some remarkably low-performing students who did better than I'd have expected in middle school. I teach ESL, and I usually teach beginners. I've had students who knew virtually no English (and absolutely no Spanish) who received 65 in ESL, ELA and Spanish. I sometimes wonder whether the NYC middle school teachers are pressured as intensely as those DC teachers. It's incredible for me to see kids who clearly know nothing about these subjects passing them.

I've been called in to administrators over the years to explain why I failed students. Usually it's not so hard for me. This one was absent 200 times in one month. That one failed every test. I don't fail students just for fun. I'd actually like to see them pass. It's tough, though, when the students  only come in two or three times a week, or month, or whatever. When you look at their grades and see that this is what they do in every class, it's even tougher.

You can call homes. I'm a great believer in calling homes. But once you do this four or five times with no change in behavior, it becomes an empty exercise. It's ridiculous to rate teachers for student performance. We are all humans. We do what we want. If what a student wants does not entail going to school, it's not the teacher's fault.

This lunacy was largely fostered under the Obama administration with all that Race to the Top nonsense. Arne Duncan and John King bought every reformy notion under the sun. Now you see them on Twitter, mustering the audacity to criticize Betsy DeVos simply because she's as incompetent and unqualified as they were.

I certainly play a part in what goes on in my classroom. I take responsibility for that. But until my job entails going to student homes, waking them up, getting them out of bed and dragging them to school, it's ridiculous to blame me for their grades. I can wake them up when they nod off in my classroom. But I still can't make them go to sleep before 3 AM.

There are a lot of factors in education. The American movement to blame the teacher for absolutely everything is short-sighted. While it satisfies the blood thirst of those who hate us and everything we stand for, while it makes some people feel good to punish us for the offense of devoting our lives to the welfare of America's children, letting kids and families completely off the hook for this behavior is not productive. When mom and dad have to work round the clock to make ends meet, it's hard for them to look after their kids.

As far as I can tell, we're moving farther away from offering help where help is needed. Just look at the insane GOP tax bill that rewards those who least need it, kicks children off of health care, and makes it even harder for working Americans to reach or maintain middle class.

But hey, let's forget all that and blame the teachers. It's the American Way.

My friend teaches social studies. He's not having the best of years. For one thing, he has a class of 41. He teaches them in a non-air-conditioned classroom. I've also been teaching in one of those. It's less than optimal on humid 96-degree days like those we've been having lately. This year I don't personally have any oversized classes, but getting the attention of dozens of teenagers in the miserable heat is challenging. To be honest, it's challenging for me to do my job at all like that.

I mean, this is 2017 and the DOE still has something called "air-conditioning season." I don't remember when it begins and ends, but I do remember it's about arbitrary dates rather than actual weather conditions. When you work for the DOE, weather conditions can be the least of your concerns.

41 students is a lot. As if that weren't enough, my friend's class is an ICT class. That means it's a mix of general and special ed., and of course he has a co-teacher to support the special ed. students. There's a max of 12 in an ICT class, but of course his has 14. He also has two ELLs in the room, so there's an ESL teacher in there to support them on Tuesdays and Thursdays. That way the school can say those two kids are served in English, despite the fact that they have exactly the same amount of time to learn about the Declaration of Independence as the American kids. Except the whole Tuesday-Thursday thing means they aren't really being served, even under the ridiculous Part 154 regs. Correction--my friend tells me an ESL teacher sitting in the class two days a week is sufficient under Part 154. Never mind that the students gave up an ESL class for that and instead are learning nothing whatsoever

But hey, if that school can get away with serving ELLs half the time they're required to, even though the fact is they aren't served at all, more power to them. I mean, really, does anyone think an ESL teacher lurking about is gonna make kids who don't speak English keep up with those who do? Only the geniuses in Albany are smart enough to do that.

My friend also complains about the matrix. He says the teachers in his school are frustrated with it. They tell the chapter leader, "You figure this stuff out and get back to us." I'm a little surprised by that. To tell you the truth, after years of rolling evaluation systems, the matrix is the first thing I've ever understood. I mean, you get a chart, your here on this axis, there on another, you point your finger, and there you are. Does this indicate validity? Who knows? But at least you kind of know where you stand, on the chart at least.

A lot of his friends don't care that the chart is superficially comprehensible. For one thing, they probably haven't looked closely enough to notice. They look at the rating and if it's effective or higher, they praise Jesus and move on. One more year without freaking out over being fired for no reason. One more year without an oppressive TIP plan in which I have to sit with people who rated me poorly for no reason and jump through hoops for them. And that's assuming they know the consequences of unfavorable ratings, which who knows whether they do?

Each year there's a new rating system. Each year UFT leadership tells us it's the bestest thing ever. Yes, last year's program was also the bestest thing ever, but now we've improved it. And leadership wonders why their message doesn't resonate. The problem is this--if last year's system was crap, and the year before's system was crap, and you were over the moon with both, it doesn't follow that we're gonna jump up and down over this year's system.

Mulgrew spoke well at the Executive Board the other night. This notwithstanding, when he praises the "growth" section of the rating, neither I nor any working teacher has the remotest notion what it means. We're looking at some test score compared to some other test score by a computer. Even when you look at the extended explanation you have no idea what the hell it means.

In my school, ratings were more or less the same in MOSL for all teachers until this year. Now it's different. If you score 15 you are effective. If you score 14 you are developing, and therefore you suck. I know, leadership will say developing doesn't suck, but teachers I know who get that score don't see it that way. Fortunately, in my building most people who got that were brought up by supervisor ratings. But what if you're in a school or system dominated by insane supervisors? Sit at the Exec. Board a few times and you'll hear about them.

When change comes every year we become wary. Sometimes it's change for change's sake, which is one of the worst rationales of which I can conceive. Other times you see Andrew Cuomo on TV saying we need change because the current system, the one I advocated and championed, is "baloney." Why? Because not enough teachers were fired. We need a system that will fire more teachers, he suggests, and it's in the pages of every paper and on every nightly news broadcast.

And as UFT leadership tells us how wonderful that system is, they marvel that we don't buy it without question. So what do they do?

The other day at the Executive Board, leadership and their Unity ducklings rubber-stamped a resolution to restrict resolutions. Maybe that will make them go away. What's going to go away, if they aren't careful, is the United Federation of Teachers.

Because ironically, though they expect us to casually deal with regular and radical change, they can't deal with any whatsoever.

I was pretty surprised at the answer I got to my question on MOSL the other night at UFT Executive Board. When I have questions, I write them down in advance because I cannot take notes while I myself am speaking. I prefaced my question by saying I would understand if UFT tried but could not negotiate a reasonable settlement with the DOE. Yet that's not the answer I got.

I had been to a MOSL committee meeting that day, and I was pretty surprised that we were expected to make an irrevocable decision about how teachers were rated without having all the relevant information handy. Here's most of my question:

Why are we supposed to make the course level irrevocable MOSL decision independent of the teacher level with no current knowledge of what choices or mandates will be available for teacher level decisions? Wouldn’t if make more sense if we knew what both factors were at the time of the first choice? Wouldn’t that help us to make the best possible decisions for our members? 

I had expected to hear that we did the best we could, but that the DOE was intractable and unreasonable. Yet I heard that it was designed this way deliberately, perhaps so as to give more time to make decisions. Yet we don't have a whole lot of time to make decisions. In fact, we have just a couple of weeks.

Maybe my notes aren't so good, but I also recall hearing a defense of the single measure on which we're now judged for the course level. For the last few years there have been the much ballyhooed multiple measures, state and local, but now they're gone and our sole course level measure is the state test. I heard how this was somehow an improvement, and how this was simpler and somehow tied into the matrix.

I don't see that, though. The junk science measure could just as easily have been an amalgam of state and local measures, and could just as easily have translated into the miraculous matrix. In my school, last year, we tied everyone to group measures wherever possible. We tied as few people as possible to groups of their own students. We did this for several reasons.

One reason, of course, is that there is no validity to tying teachers to test scores. This theory is supported by thinkers like Diane Ravitch, Carol Burris, and Leonie Haimson. In case that's not enough for you, it's also supported by the American Statistical Association, which says teachers affect student test grades by a factor of 1-14%. And for my Unity friends, it's also supported by AFT President Randi Weingarten, who famously declared, "VAM is a sham."

You never know about groupings. Some teachers may be particularly good at teaching repeater classes, but students who've already proven capable of failure are not necessarily a fair measure of how good any teacher is. And as many of us know, there may be a supervisor or two out there who will assign classes out of sheer malice and vindictiveness. None of this, evidently, influenced leadership when it negotiated this system.

So now, if you teach a course that terminates in a Regents exam, there will be nothing to mitigate your course-level junk science measurement. This is a significant change. In my school, for example, we tried to balance the junk science with large group measurements. We were successful in that there was minimal teacher-to-teacher variation in the junk science portion of our ratings. While many of us went from highly effective to effective, some of us went from ineffective to developing. I may have bitched about moving down from HE, but I came to see the benefits of being drawn to the middle.

Me, I'm an ESL teacher. I will therefore be judged on the NYSESLAT exam, a mishmosh of nonsense that changes each and every year. While I have learned a lot about Hammurabbi's code by asking a whole lot of students a whole lot of questions about it, I question whether this test measures the language acquisition it's my job to promote. And I certainly do not teach to this test. First of all, I generally have no idea what will be on it. More importantly, I know it was revised to be more Common Corey, for reasons that baffle me utterly. The fact is my kids have distinctly different English needs than those of kids born here. That NY State willfully chooses to ignore this does not mean I will neglect teaching kids the nuts and bolts of American English.

Last year, along with the rest of my department, I was rated well on the NYSESLAT, but I have no earthly notion as to why. It's ridiculous that we are expected to simply sit around and hope for the best on measures that are pivotal in whether or not we get to keep our careers.

There is a fundamental unfairness in this system. That is, everyone who does NOT teach a course attached to a state exam may be rated on group measures. Now we could make it "fair" by, say, tying an art teacher to the results of some random Regents math class, but just because the system sucks for me is no reason to make it suck for everyone. In my building, it's likely we will continue to attach teachers to group measures wherever possible. At worst, we'll perhaps attach teachers to their own departments where it's appropriate. That way, maybe, science teachers have a stake in whether or not they choose to tutor science students.

Me, I find multiple errors in the UFT negotiation process. I rate leadership ineffective. Thankfully for them, they don't spend one single solitary moment fretting over member opinion, as everyone with whom they speak has signed a loyalty oath and reaffirms the notion that everything is wonderful no matter what.

Ironically, for the future of our union, therein lies the fundamental problem.

I've been to a lot of events in which the beauty and wonder of the new evaluation system has been placed in my face. It's now, it's wow. And it's so much better than the old one, because the matrix will make everything better. Now, you can just match up this rating to that rating, and there are no more nasty numbers and averages to fret over.

And here's the thing--now you don't have to worry if your principal tells you to do some crazy nonsense. If you and he don't agree, it goes to the default option, which is everyone getting rated by schoolwide measures. This makes the junk science more valid because the larger the sample, the more valid it's likely to be. For example, if your sample is small, say, just a few classes, who knows how they are composed?

You could, for example, have a group of repeaters, and who knows why they're repeating? Maybe they have learning disabilities. Maybe they don't know English. Maybe they just don't like studying. Maybe they hate the subject you teach. Maybe they just hate you. Who knows?

But here's the thing--it appears to me, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that anyone who teaches Regents classes is going to be rated by the Regents classes. Common Core? Too bad. No moratorium for high school teachers. That's for 4 to 8 English and math only, last I looked. Can you go school wide for the Regents scores? No. Can you go department wide for the Regents scores? No.

You're on your own. The American Statistical Association says that teachers affect test scores by a  factor somewhere between 1-14%. But that's too bad for you, pal. If that small group of kids you teach doesn't do as well as you need them to, you could be screwed. Now of course there is the possibility that your supervisor could rate you well, and that could save your ass, or at least keep it from getting rated ineffective.

But wait a minute--isn't the whole advantage of this thing, the one I've heard Michael Mulgrew praise on numerous occasions, that it's supposed to save you from the unfettered power that the principal used to wield? Haven't we been told at meeting after meeting how those horrible principals used to write S or U and there was nothing we could do about it until we added this valuable junk science to the equation? Oddly, I don't remember anyone being freaked out under the S and U system. I see everyone freaked out over this one.

But I'm just a lowly chapter leader working in a school every day. I'm sure from the vantage point of the 14th floor at 52 Broadway, where no one teaches more than one class and everyone is rated S or U if at all, things look different. The only thing that really puzzles me is why they aren't up in arms clamoring for the right to be rated by this fantastic new system.

Now here's a thought. Since there are indeed one or two small-minded, vindictive administrators out there, what on earth is to keep them from making teachers they can't stand teach Regents classes full of students who won't do well? Were they to do that, they could sink their prey by observing things that didn't happen and failing to see things that did. I've mentioned before that I've seen video evidence of one such observation. This leads me to wonder how, exactly, we've improved on the old S/ U system. This is particularly true because under that system the burden of proof was always on the DOE.

Now it's possible that if you don't have all Regents classes you will be evaluated by some sort of blend--your Regents classes and whatever measure non-Regents teachers get. We shall see. And you may say, "But hey, NYC Educator, the issue is not so much the system itself as its abuse by crazy supervisors." Now, you may be right.

But here's the thing--union leaders think the supervisors are so crazy that adding junk science to evaluations makes them better. Supervisors are so bad that this is an improvement, evidently. And of course, with the burden of proof on the teacher and the possibility of rigging the game with unfavorable Regents classes this could give supervisors more, not less power.

Perhaps we could've addressed the problem of supervisory incompetence head-on. Instead, leadership is subjecting teachers to this nonsense, painting a happy face on it, and dancing as fast as they can trying to tell us how happy we should be. When I talk to teachers about it, they're just not feeling the love. And neither am I.

I've written in the past about Part 154, the newly revised regulation that effectively cuts direct English instruction and reduces ESL teachers to support staff for teachers of other subjects. In New York State, learning the English language is subordinate to mastering things on which you can be tested. Therefore, in the same time American-born students are studying Macbeth, ESL teachers are supposed to stand around and make sure students who don't understand English acquire the language via studying a form of it no one uses anymore.

Last year, the state was rather benign about enforcement. This was a good thing, because it was a huge stinking mess. Small schools with one ESL teacher would expect said teacher to be everywhere, teaching everything. As you can imagine, that's not a task that can be easily accomplished. What actually happened was that these teachers ran around like headless chickens accomplishing little or nothing. That's too bad because on this astral plane, it's actually kind of important to learn the prevalent language of the country in which you reside.

I know of other small schools in which the ESL teacher is treated as an annoyance. There's the social studies teacher, teaching about the Spanish American War, and that pesky ESL teacher is always interrupting, handing the ELLs vocabulary sheets and stuff. How are they supposed to pay attention to the lesson? How are they supposed to grasp what the social studies teacher is offering when the other teacher is continually interrupting? And how are they supposed to teach not only the subject, but also the language, when newcomers have the same 40 minutes as American-born kids to learn in?

On the other hand, I work in a large school. Aside from the issue of concurrently teaching the subject and basic English, the demands of Part 154 are equally impossible there as in any setting. There are a whole lot of things that just don't make any sense. For example, students are not allowed to be more than one grade apart, so it's virtually impossible to make up classes based on language level rather than grade level. You can, of course, run one section of 4 students and another of 44 students. While that might not make sense to any teacher or administrator who hasn't eaten LSD for breakfast, rules are rules.

The geniuses at Tweed, of course, have the answer. What you do, you see, is you hang up bulletin boards with student work. Also, you make sure a rubric is attached. You see how that fixes everything? Also, you make sure there is a library in the back of the classroom. You also make sure that every ESL teacher does all this stuff, because of course they have nothing else to do. This helps everything. Those are just a few things I noticed in 23 pages of rubrics and demands the DOE helpfully sent us last week.

To further help us, they're gonna visit us six times this year and rate us on said rubrics. That's great. Because just last week, a whole lot of UFT members were approaching me and saying, "Hey, you know what? I don't feel enough pressure on myself as a teacher. I'm just not being micromanaged enough." So naturally, we're all glad the New York City Department of Education, which knows absolutely everything, is coming around with a ponderous and detailed document that no one has ever seen before and demanding we do absolutely everything on it. Because a day without rubrics is like a day without sunshine.

I guess if I were an effective teacher I'd make up 23 pages of rubrics for my students and demand they tow the line. Instead, I've been limiting my focus every day trying to make them learn English so they can, you know, communicate, have lives, and maybe be happy. The truth is I have never seen any of those goals on any rubric detailing college and career readiness, so they must be frivolous and unnecessary. Only the NYC Department of Education, which actually has a PowerPoint somewhere that says acquisition of English is strictly for the purpose of excelling in academic subjects, has the answers. Otherwise, why would they be in those air-conditioned offices in Tweed while we just hang around having big fun in classrooms?

Me, I'm just glad they're coming. I know my colleagues are delighted. Like all teachers, we haven't got enough pressure on us. Being visited and judged six times by people wielding an incomprehensible rubric designed by a bunch of bureaucrats with no idea what we actually do, or how impossible it is to meet their regulations, is just what we need to keep us on our toes. And naturally, as our jobs are so breezy and easy, we have plenty of time to sit around and incorporate their demands into what we do each and every day. Evidently, the DOE thinks we sit around each day and wait for them to tell us what to do, so they are performing a great service by swooping down like the Spanish Inquisition.

The Sword of Damocles that is the APPR system isn't enough. The huge exodus of new teachers isn't enough either. So lets focus on one single department and support them six full days. Let's amp up the observations and judge the teachers on not one, but rather two distinct rubrics. Because Danielson, while it's on par with the Ten Commandments and never to be questioned, cannot truly assess quality even though it assesses quality perfectly.

Oversized classes? Not our problem. Kids never been to school in their first language? Too bad for you. School at 214% capacity? Deal with it. We're from the Department of Education and we're here to help.

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.

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. 

The Washington Post interviewed both major candidates about education, and I'm not jumping up and down about either. Trump simply offered a statement about school choice, meaning charters, vouchers, and pretty much anything that doubles down against unionized public schools. Hillary is more nuanced, but not precisely encouraging. For one thing, it's disappointing she isn't still shunning spawn of Satan Rahm Emanuel. But let's look at the issues.

Testing:

A lot of us don't believe in high-stakes testing, particularly since they tend to shed light on nothing but which zip code students come from. Here's what Hillary says:

To me, the solution is better, fewer, and fairer tests.  The bipartisan Every Student Succeeds Act was a step in the right direction. By providing funding to states and school districts to audit their testing systems and reduce unnecessary and duplicative tests, the legislation can help us find the right balance on testing.

It's not a bad answer, but it's not a strong one either. This is the same rhetoric we always get from testing apologists, and it really rules out nothing whatsoever. We're always hearing about how there's less testing, about how tests take less time, even when they're untimed. It really makes no difference what the truth of the matter is. That's not a strong statement, but rather a middle-of-the-road thing that makes it hard to disagree. But where's the beef?

Common Core:

When states came together on Common Core, I thought that was a laudable effort. But, like many Americans, I have concerns about how the Common Core has been implemented.

This is sorely disappointing. This is the same boilerplate excuse we get from virtually every CCSS supporter. It's like an executioner stating the process would work much better if only the guillotine were better oiled. Hillary sent Chelsea to the same elite school Obama sent his girls to. It utilizes none of the nonsense that CCSS inflicts on our children. Close reading is discredited nonsense, and if it isn't good enough for Hillary's kid, it's not good enough for yours either.

Charter schools:

Quality public charter schools can provide parents with real choices for their children. In fact, many of the country’s best public charter schools are opening doors to opportunity for disadvantaged students. That’s why I have long been a strong supporter of public charter schools and an unflinching advocate for traditional public schools.

She supports them, in case that is not clear. And she uses the ridiculous term "public" charter schools even though the only actual part of them that's public is the funding. You won't see Hillary making a fuss when Eva Moskowitz decides rules that dictate funding are too inconvenient for her. And the distinction between non-profit and for-profit charters, while it may mean something somewhere, doesn't prevent the likes of Moskowitz from paying herself half a million per annum.

Teacher evaluation:

The Every Students Succeeds Act provides a great framework for supporting educators. And specifically on the issue of evaluations, the law helps us move in the right direction by providing states the flexibility to design holistic accountability systems.  That moves us closer to ensuring every student has a supported and effective teacher in the classroom.

What does that even mean? The question specifically asked whether or not she was for VAM junk science evaluation of teachers. There is no yes, no no, and for my money, no answer. Perhaps she's saying she's glad there are alternatives. Still, I want to know whether or not the next President of the United States supports junk science.

Poverty:

...schools alone can’t overcome the crisis of children living in poverty.  This is something we all need to come together to address as a country.  Because the truest measure of any society is how care for our kids. 

I like this answer. It's her best, for my money. But if she believes that, why won't she stand up and say we have to stop evaluating teachers with junk science? Now I'm going to vote for Hillary, but with very little enthusiasm. This is because the alternative is Donald Trump, and I think he need be as widely repudiated as possible.

When she is President, we will need to speak as loudly and directly as we can. We will need to move Hillary Clinton away from these weasel positions and demand she support us. Make no mistake, anyone who supports children must also support their teachers. We are their role models, and I don't go to work every day to model being a victim. We must also demand that our union leadership speak up for those of us on the ground.

I don't have great expectations of President Hillary Clinton. But I think together we have the potential to cajole, push, move or force her toward sanity.

You probably think I don't pay attention at PD but I do. I went to a session on Tuesday all about feedback. Evidently it has to be specific and timely. You know, you tell students right away when they have an issue. That way they can deal with it right away. For example, you should wait 30 days and then tell them about what they did last month. You also shouldn't wait 45 days and then talk to them about what they did six weeks ago, while they wait to find out what they did last month.

It's also important that the feedback be actionable. For example, you should provide strategy. This is how you can write, draw, or do that better. I would do it like this. This is what this writer does. You can't just say, "Boy, did that suck," and move on. That's not actionable. You have to offer ways they can improve.

Also, you should be positive. You can't dwell on the student's incompetence or make invidious comparisons. You can't say things like, "Why can't you teach learn like your colleague that other student?" You can't ask, "Why isn't your passing rate grade as high as this other teacher student?" It's important to be positive. That will encourage people to grow and learn. You certainly don't want to discourage people and have them wondering what the use is.

It's important that you offer change step by step. For example, you ought not to focus on every ___domain of Danielson paragraph of a composition. You should do one step at a time so the teacher student is not overwhelmed. After all, it isn't reasonable to expect a sea change overnight.

And of course you need to be receptive and assume there is an opportunity for change. Let's say, for example, you're walking around all over the building saying this teacher student sucks and you can't wait to get rid of her. Well, that might get back to the teacher student, and then how would she feel? Probably she'd feel the situation was hopeless and she'd be likely to give up. What's the point of aiming for improvement when you've destroyed a person's morale?

Peer feedback is important too. You can't just have a supervisor teacher talking down to a teacher student. That won't be as effective as it would be if you had peer to peer interaction. That's important in Danielson too, so it's noteworthy in our system. It's also easier to give feedback when the subject isn't present. That way, teachers students can learn without feeling targeted. After all, no one likes being targeted. Anonymity is always good, if possible.

It's important to target specific areas. If you were to say, for instance, that everything without exception is wrong, it could cause the teacher student to shut down. Once that happens, there's little or not possibility for improvement and all your effort is in vain. You can't just hand a person a list, say good luck, and hope for the best.

So that's what I got out of our PD session. Can you see any way it might apply or be helpful at your school?

By now, you've gotten your evaluation report in your DOE email. You may or may not understand it. I won't pretend to. Activist blogger Jonathan Halabi wrote something on Facebook that caught my eye, and I asked him to expand it and share it here. He looked for meaning in the MOSL in a way that wouldn't have occurred to me. After he did that, I sent him my evaluation, and he found it to be about as meaningful as his own (and likely yours too). See for yourself:


I was just evaluated by a list of numbers that could have been random



I took the last two digits of 71 of my last year students’ student ID numbers (OSIS), put them in order, and made a list.



I asked a random number generator to give me 71 numbers from 1 to 100, I put them in order, and I made a list.



I took my “student growth percentiles” from my teacher evaluation, all 71 of them, put them in order, and made a list.



Can you tell which list is which? You probably cannot.  All three of these lists, they appear very similar. Look for yourself:



1, 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19, 19, 22, 25, 25, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 33, 35, 36, 42, 42, 42, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 51, 51, 52, 52, 56, 58, 58, 58, 58, 62, 62, 63, 63, 65, 66, 66, 69, 70, 71, 73, 73, 73, 74, 74, 75, 76, 80, 80, 81, 81, 83, 84, 85, 88, 90, 94, 94, 95, 98



1, 1, 1, 7, 7, 9, 11, 14, 14, 14, 16, 16, 17, 17, 20, 20, 23, 24, 27, 27, 28, 29, 33, 34, 34, 35, 41, 41, 43, 46, 48, 48, 48, 50, 51, 53, 58, 61, 62, 62, 63, 63, 63, 64, 66, 67, 67, 67, 69, 73, 75, 75, 76, 76, 77, 78, 78, 78, 79, 79, 81, 81, 81, 83, 85, 85, 87, 95, 95, 96, 97



2, 4, 5, 6, 6, 8, 10, 10, 10, 13, 16, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 28, 28, 28, 28, 31, 32, 33, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 38, 40, 40, 41, 42, 48, 52, 52, 52, 53, 54, 55, 59, 59, 62, 62, 63, 64, 66, 66, 67, 67, 69, 69, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 79, 82, 84, 86, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 91, 96, 97, 99



Here’s a hint:  the average of the first list is 51, the average of the second list is 51, and the average of the third list is 49. Doesn’t help, does it?



Statisticians can examine data to see how “spread out” it is. They use something called “standard deviation.” The standard deviations for these three lists? 27, 28, and 28. Still doesn’t help.



The real list is as random as the random list. Next year they might as well base my score on my students’ ID numbers.

The NY Post knows a failing teacher when it sees one. Anyone who wasn't hired back at John Adams, to the NY Post, is a "failing teacher" and "inept." One good thing, for the NY Post is this--they make these assertions with no evidence whatsoever, and evidently the libel laws in this country are lax enough that they do so with impunity.

I worked at John Adams for about seven years. I transferred because my supervisor gave me an ultimatum. She had a Spanish teacher who threw kids out of the class all the time and I never did that. So she wouldn't have to be bothered with the kids being tossed out, she wanted me to teach all Spanish. Otherwise she was going to give me a schedule late enough that it would preclude the second job I had taken to pay my mortgage. I left on a UFT transfer.

If I hadn't done that, the NY Post would likely be calling me inept and failing. I don't think anyone with a choice would hire me as a teacher. While I don't get complaints about my actual teaching, I am fairly confident my principal would back me up when I say I am a pain in the ass. Seriously, who wants to deal with the likes of me when you can pick and choose anyone you wish? It's a lot easier to run a school when you can just ignore the contract and do whatever the hell you like.

Actually I was not such a pain in the ass when I worked at Adams. My then boss had no reason to be upset with me. But the fact that I love teaching English, as well as the fact that I am much more competent in English than Spanish meant nothing. I was gonna teach Spanish, because it was convenient for her, and that was it. Decisions like those don't factor into the equation, as far as the NY Post. So what if teachers are assigned where they are not their best? Administration is not to be questioned, and anything wrong in the building is the sole province of the teachers, who suck and must be called out for it.

Naturally the Post enlists the opinions of pro-charter folks. Their opinions are of paramount importance because they, unlike us, know how kids should be treated. Clearly children should pee their pants doing test prep and not be subject to namby pamby liberal gobbledygook like bathroom passes.

“Shuffling ineffective teachers from one school to another isn’t a sign that the administration is willing to prioritize students above the bureaucracy,” said Jeremiah Kittredge of Families for Excellent Schools, a charter backer.

Isn't it cool that you can say stuff like that with no evidence whatsoever? In fact there is an agreed-upon standard for declaring a teacher ineffective. Well, there's one in the public schools. Charters aren't subject to that, opting to do any damn thing they please. They aren't subject to chancellor's regulations about corporal punishment, verbal abuse, or pretty much anything. They can dump students, not replace them, and not include them in their stats either. And despite their claims, lotteries are most certainly not random. A parent has to be proactive enough to apply, and agree to whatever extra demands the charters have.

But hey, FES says we suck, and if that's not enough for Post readers, they round it off with some predictable blather from the same Students First NY mouthpiece who seems to comment on everything.

In fact, public schools take everyone, every kid, every special need, every kid who doesn't know a single word of English, every kid with interrupted formal education. They are then subject to the baseless and abusive comments like those of Mr. Jeremiah Kittredge, likely as not taken as gospel by readers of the NY Post.

I'm fairly confident that John Adams wouldn't want me back either. Maybe I'd be an ineffective Spanish teacher, though I'm appointed to teach ESL. And even if I weren't, I would fight to enforce our Contract. Well, who needs that? Not charter school supporters, who generally can't be bothered with union. Here's what the NY Times says about Moskowitz Academy teachers: 

For teachers, who are not unionized and usually just out of college, 11-hour days are the norm, and each one is under constant monitoring, by principals who make frequent visits, and by databases that record quiz scores.

Why are they usually just out of college? Doesn't that suggest that their predecessors didn't last? Doesn't that mean, by NY Post standards, that their predecessors were failing and inept? And if the new teachers don't last, as history suggests, aren't they failing and inept too? Heavens to Betsy, how can that be, with the high standards FES and all the reformies hold so dear?

We're on a merry-go-round of arbitrary standards and random vilification. If we want people to become teachers and hang around longer than they do at the Moskowitz academies, we're gonna have to start treating them like human beings rather than convicted felons.  By their standard, I'm as failing and inept as any teacher labeled by the Post, and so are we all. 

Last weekend I went to a chapter leader training in Rye, NY. To the left you can see a view from my room. It was really very nice, and you can never know too much. It turns out I'd been through quite a bit of what was discussed, though I picked up a few things here and there.

At the plenary on Saturday morning, Michael Mulgrew got up and said that some people wanted to have principals have total control over teacher ratings. I was pretty surprised that he had given that no thought whatsoever, spouting out the same nonsense I’ve seen on Twitter. Once again he went to the numbers, that there were 2,000 poorly rated teachers then and are only 700 now.

Mulgrew clearly wasn’t concerned about burden of proof shifting from the DOE to teachers. Like everyone else I’ve seen spouting the Unity talking point, he didn’t even seem to recall that part. What’s the big deal about people being guilty until proven innocent? What’s the big deal if few 3020a hearings used to be resolved in favor of the city, and there’s a strong possibility that few future ones will be resolved in the favor of teachers.

Mulgrew did share some pearls of wisdom. “You can’t go on TV if your head is shining way too much.” That got a laugh from most of the crowd, but having heard him make a clear slander against people I work with and respect, I wasn’t laughing so quickly.

Mulgrew spoke of Karen Lewis, and of how, according to him she asked, “Mulgrew, can you imagine Rahm Emanuel being the good guy against the governor” He said it would be like us saying Bloomberg was a good guy.

I guess he forgot about Randi going to the baseball game with Bloomberg, or Klein hugging Randi (if it were me I’d have washed my whole body with Brillo pad) or that we approved Bloomberg's mayoral control not only at its inception, but also after it was pretty much well-established to have been an abject disaster. Maybe he forgot that we approved the ATR, or the raises that weren’t really raises because we worked more time to get more money. And let’s forget about the miserable deal he himself negotiated with a mayor we deemed to be friendly.

Then he spoke about the success of a school that had given up the “top-down craziness.” I, for one, am not a strong supporter of “top-down craziness,” and that’s precisely why I won’t be voting for Michael Mulgrew and his loyalty oath-signing band of 800. Mulgrew spoke about how so many principals made so many demands, and how people complied, but with no real passion. Of course he’s right.

But my passion comes from within. That’s why I can’t join Unity. Who the hell wants to be part of a group that’s as top-down as the principals Mulgrew criticizes? Well, 800 or more, evidently. Thanks, but I’ll take James Eterno. Thanks but I’ll take Jia Lee, and Lauren Cohen, and Mike Schirtzer, and Jonathan Halabi, and Kit Wainer.

Mulgrew asks what we can do for the chapter leader. For my money, he can liberate them. He can stop tying them to a failed philosophy and requiring them to support any damn thing he feels like. Now I didn’t get up and say that, and maybe that’s on me.

But even more telling, to me at least, was at one of the final sessions. I was sitting with a bunch of mostly Unity chapter leaders who were astounded that I had over thirty years and wasn't planning to retire. Several spoke of the 25/55 initiative of a few years back. One looked longingly back to it, wishing he had joined up. He said, "At the time, I had no idea this profession was going to s**t."

You know, if even the Unity chapter leaders know what we're feeling, it's almost inconceivable that folks like Mulgrew have managed to not to see it. I guess if you're a chapter leader, teaching every day and talking to working UFT members, you can't really avoid it. But it kind of makes you wonder how Mulgrew can thank the Heavy Hearts for making our system even worse.

How do you sign a loyalty oath to Unity and publicly espouse positions you know firsthand to be untrue?

I actually blogged something very close to this a few days ago, but after hearing Mulgrew harp on it at the DA, after hearing it was mentioned before I showed up at a CL meeting, and after seeing tweets like the one below, I'm gonna address it directly.

.@morecaucusNYC You want principals to have total control over eval? We disagree. ref="https://twitter.com/Unity_Today">@Unity_Today

— UFT Unity (@UFTUnity) March 24, 2016

First of all, this is a strawman, a logical fallacy. I have never, ever heard anyone from MORE say they want principals to have total control over evaluation. What MORE says is precisely what Diane Ravitch does, to wit, that teachers ought not to be rated by junk science. And that, frankly, is the only thing there is other than principal evaluations.

The other Unity talking point, one some Unity person threw at me on Twitter earlier today, is that there are only 700 double I rated teachers, down from 2,000 U rated teachers. I suppose that is from the last year they have records, but who really knows where they get that stuff from? Anyway, let's suppose they are correct. There is still a problem here.

Back in the bad old days when the principal had total control over evaluation, when that nasty principal sought to remove you via 3020a he had to prove you were incompetent. He had to make a case and demonstrate before an arbitrator that the stuff he wrote had validity. And that was a tough mountain to climb. That was why those mean old principals were so rarely successful.

Under the plan that Unity wants us to fall in love with, a double I-rated teacher has to prove he is not incompetent. That's a tough mountain to climb too, except it will be you climbing it instead of the principal. Now sure, there is the UFT Rat Squad, and if they say you're doing a swell job, the burden of proof will revert back to the principal. In fact, Unity will proudly declare they do just that 30% of the time. So what does that mean?

That means that 70% of the time, UFT teachers have the burden of proof on them. Compare that to the S-U system, when that happened precisely zero percent of the time.  And if that isn't enough, under the new Cuomo education law, the one the UFT declined to oppose, the one Mulgrew thanked the legislature for passing, we may not even get the dubious benefit of the UFT Rat Squad. Mulgrew says he's working on it, but as his caucus misrepresents MORE's position, it also condemns "small locals." That's code for Stronger Together, the new caucus in NYSUT that opposes the reformy nonsense Mulgrew and his BFFs have enabled for us.

And again, that non-principal evaluation stuff that Unity seems so proud of? It's VAM junk science. The American Statistical Association has determined that teachers move test scores by a factor of 1-14%. Yet in our evaluations, it counts 40%, and next year could count 50. And who knows? Maybe they help you out. In my high-performing school, I have seen members brought up from developing to effective, particularly the first year. It appears to me the supervisors wised up somewhat the second year, though, and started giving lower ratings to that lucky few. I could be wrong. But what difference does it make whether I am or not when our ratings are largely based on a crapshoot?

I know a person from another school who got an ineffective rating due solely to test scores. She was not precisely doing a jig over the new system. I'm sure she's not the only one. But if she is, she is one too many.

I am personally flabbergasted that this is the best talking point the highly compensated minds at Unity could muster. Back to the drawing board, fellas.

In a headline that appears to belong on The Onion, New York's own Reformy John King is "trying to repair the Obama administration's frayed relationship with teachers." This is kind of incredible. First of all, if President Obama wished to score points with teachers, he would not begin by appointing someone who appears to hate us and everything we stand for. And yes, that would be King.

In New York, King held hearings on Common Core. When he found himself criticized, the King called public school teachers and parents "special interests." He then canceled all subsequent hearings until an outraged public forced him to come out of his office and face the music. King passionately supported the miserable Common Core, and became indignant when New Yorkers asked why he placed his own children in schools that did not use it.

In one of his first major speeches as acting U.S. secretary of education, John King apologized to teachers for the role that the federal government has played in creating a climate in which teachers feel “attacked and unfairly blamed.”

It is borderline surreal to read these words. King himself championed the New York junk science rating system. It never bothered him that value-added teacher rating had no established validity. He totally ignored NY State principals who said that this was the wrong way to go. When the American Statistical Association declared that teachers affected student scores by a factor of 1-14%, King did not raise a whisper of acknowledgement.

Another disappointment is the reaction of NEA President Lily Eskelson Garcia:

“We definitely hear something new coming out of Dr. King,” she said, adding that while his words “mean a lot to us,” teachers are now interested in seeing how he backs up those words with actions.

The fact is she ought to know better. Candidate Barack Obama went to the NEA and promised to do things "with" teachers, not "to" us.  He followed that up by appointing Arne Duncan Secretary of Education, racing to the top, and imposing junk science ratings and Common Core on most of the country via a gun to its head. When Arne said Katrina was the best thing to happen to NOLA education, Obama didn't chastize him at all. When Arne made his idiotic remark about soccer moms' kids not being so smart, based on ridiculous Common Core tests, Obama said nothing.

Making John King Duncan's successor was a slap in the face to working teachers. It's very disappointing neither Eskelson Garcia nor Weingarten would come right out and say so. Of course, they're both busy campaigning for Hillary Clinton, who has promised to close any school that isn't "above average."

King would have us entirely forget his own tenure in New York and make believe we trust him. I certainly hope we aren't stupid enough to fall for that.

Lohud reports there are 13,000 fewer teachers in NY State than there were five years ago.  I know there are thousands fewer teachers in NYC alone, though I can't say offhand just how much of that figure it represents. We know that in NYC, Emperor Bloomberg had a habit of allowing teacher ranks to drop through attrition. Retiring? Fine. One more person I don't have to pay, figured Emperor Mike, and screw the inevitable larger class sizes they'd cause.

For the rest of the state, there is the Gap Elimination Adjustment, which Cuomo now proposes to end, but which has still cut state aid for drastically for many districts since 2009. Couple that with the Cuomo's tax cap of 2% or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower (a measly .12% this year, if I recall correctly), and districts all over the state are strung out for cash. Cuomo, who fancies himself a "student lobbyist" has set it up so districts need a super-majority to aid their children. This, in fact, gives more power to those who'd deny students than those who'd support them, let alone "lobby" for them.

Cuomo gives lip service to moves he's made toward a less insane system, like his so-called moratorium on Common Core testing. This is much ballyhooed not only by Cuomo, but also by UFT leadership, which placed it on the cover of the most recent copy of NY Teacher. In fact, this affects only the scores on state ELA and math tests in grades 3-8, so for most of us, it's meaningless. In fact, it's not even clear whether these scores are entirely not going to be counted in future years.

With all teachers about to be rated 50% via test scores, an entirely invalid measure, it's getting harder to encourage newcomers to go for this job. We now know that we are to be observed by "independent" observers, since of course school supervisors may be prejudiced in favor of the people with whom they work. What an outrage. This follows, of course, the state's brilliant move not to allow teachers to grade their own students. After all, we're just a bunch of thieving, unscrupulous, self-serving bottom feeders who will do anything to look good. We'll never be paragons of integrity like Andrew Cuomo.

We're looking at an insane law, a law for which UFT President Michael Mulgrew thanked our Heavy Hearted Legislature, and a law which neither UFT nor NYSUT appears poised to reform. Mulgrew told us that he'd decided to focus on funding rather than reasonable evaluation. Doubtless, as he always says, he has very smart people with very smart reasons why we should not fight the increase in junk science evaluation for working teachers.

So while UFT declares victory on the cover of NY Teacher, we're looking at yet another evaluation system. This is becoming an annual event in NYC. Once you get a little bit used to the nonsense used to rate you, Cuomo decides not enough of us are being fired and makes up some new and more draconian BS for the teacher-hating charter school enthusiasts who give him so much money. To try and appease the opt-out people who frighten the crap out of him, he proposes a few changes, including the "moratorium" and nebulous promises to adjust Common Core.

UFT leadership declares victory, as it always does no matter what, and opt-out promises to keep up the fight. Again, we are on the wrong side doing the wrong thing, just as we were when Mulgrew promised to punch our faces out if we touched his precious Common Core. Of course, now it's a victory that Cuomo is doing just that, and he spend $1.4 million on a commercial telling NY State what a great guy we thing Cuomo is.

It's hard for me to believe these words as I write them, but that's pretty much the way it is. It's time for our union to get on the right side of history, whether Michael Mulgrew likes it or not. Fortunately, there are teacher groups who notice this and are urging leadership toward sanity.

It makes me kind of wish the UFT election were not rigged, so that it weren't dominated by retirees, so that high school teachers could select their own VP, and so that the winner take all system didn't mean absolutely every delegate to NYSUT and AFT were a loyalty oath signer bound do do Any Damn Thing Leroy Barr Says.

But I'm a dreamer. I'm a teacher and it's my job to see potential and act on it.

It kind of freaks me out to read that Eva Moskowitz and her reformy BFFs have outspent union on lobbying. And by quite a bit, too:

In all, labor groups and their key allies on education issues spent $8.3 million on political activity in 2015. Charter schools and their influential lobbying arms spent a little over $9 million, and tax credit advocates, $5.7 million, according to the lobbying and campaign finance reports.

So they're outspending us on two fronts. First, on charters, which is a great way of getting public money into private hands. They have great commercials, telling us to support the noble and principled Andrew Cuomo as he struggles to fire all those crappy unionized public school teachers. After all, the test scores are down, and that's what matters. Who cares if the tests are all new and we've set the cut scores to make everyone fail? That's not in the commercial, so no one knows it anyway.

The second front, of course, is the tax credits that will pay for John King to send his kids to a Montessori school, thus sidestepping the awful programs and tests he's imposed on everyone else. And if you want to send your kid to that school, well, that's fine as long as you can pony up the difference. This is another great way to help rich people have more money to invest, always a priority for the politicians they've bought, like Cuomo and King.

Now I've watched NYSUT and UFT celebrate for the last two year that we didn't get this tax credit/ back door voucher program. While they didn't achieve anything good, at least they've put off one bad thing for another year. Problem, of course, is that every time you cut off one reformy head, another grows in its place. Last year, for example, they didn't get the tax credits, but they did get a teacher evaluation system that's even worse than the one we have now, and we did take away the right of unions to negotiate much of it. Now that we have that, and Michael Mulgrew has thanked the Heavy Hearts Assembly for it, they can push even harder for the tax credit.

What really bothers me, though, considering that unions have spent all those millions, is that we've spent two or three of them on glitzy commercials congratulation Andrew Cuomo for coming to his senses on education. Unfortunately, it's plain that while Cuomo gives lip service to change, things are fundamentally the same. If you teach above grade 8, things haven't changed at all. And giving kids unlimited time to torture themselves with developmentally inappropriate tests was not precisely a victory either.

If you think Cuomo is a friend of education, you need look no further than his insistence that his idiotic tax cap be adhered to. Schools are allowed to raise their budgets by a whopping 0.12% this year, and no matter how high inflation gets it's capped at 2%. This comes from a man who musters the audacity to label himself a "student lobbyist." I listened to current NYSUT leaders discuss all the clever ways they'd get around the cap, and thus far they've failed to deliver, instead opting to spend member dollars telling the world what a swell guy Andy Cuomo turned out to be.

It's time for UFT and NYSUT leadership to get out of the ass-kissing, seat-at-the-table, Cuomo-praising business and start advocating for not only those of us who they ostensibly represent, but our students as well.

Rodney Dangerfield used to have a routine about heaviness. It followed him everywhere. He'd wake up in the morning and say, "Hello, heaviness." The heaviness would answer. It would say something like, "You're gonna be drinking early today." Dangerfield, of course, felt the heaviness because he didn't get no respect.

In case you hadn't noticed, teachers don't get no respect either. So we feel the heaviness too. Administrators don't understand it. They're too busy writing up observation reports about things that may or may not have happened. It really doesn't matter, as long as they get enough of them done in a timely fashion.

And you, all you have to do is grade stacks of papers, write IEPs, consult with your co-teacher, consult with your other co-teacher, go to your teacher team, go to PD, call the parents, patrol the hall, go to meetings, keep a record so you don't lose your license, go to another school to mark papers, proctor 500 exams, grade 200 more, reflect on all you've done, ask the kids to reflect on it too, write your class midterm, analyze your department midterm, and intervisit with your colleague to show school spirit. Oh, and you have to write lesson plans. And teach the classes. Did I forget that part? Well, you'd better not.

Anyway, the heaviness. It's the Danielson rubric, don't you know. Can your 30-year-old supervisor give the highly effective lesson he expects from you every time he darkens your doorstep? Who knows? It doesn't matter. He read in the book what it is, and goddam it you'd better deliver, or you're on a one-way trip to Palookaville. What's the matter, can't you deal with a few stinking observations?

Well, here's the thing. If you have a supervisor who isn't insane, it's likely you can. But how many of you can say that? And even if you can, this system was expressly designed to get rid of lowlife teachers like you and me. Cuomo said so when Bloomberg wanted to get rid of LIFO. This will thin the herd, he suggested. Then when it didn't, he called the system "baloney," and worked to make it even worse. 50% junk science, because the current system isn't crappy enough. Wear sunglasses and dress hip because your rating is going through a matrix.

Oh, and by the way, because not only do you suck, but your supervisor also sucks for not issuing enough negative ratings, we need outside observers. That's the only way we can make sure we fire enough of those stinking teachers. And make no mistake, that's what the current system was put in place to do. The only reason the system is changing is because it wasn't doing so efficiently enough.

Are we paranoid? Perhaps. But they are out to get us, they've said so quite openly, so maybe we're reacting entirely appropriately. Still, in any case, there's the heaviness. Every day before we go to work, we say, "Hello, heaviness."

Sadly, it's gonna take a lot of work before we can say goodbye.

I don't  know much about the writer of the quote at left. Oddly, I found it on Facebook, posted by the writer himself. I'm wary of people who quote themselves, but I love this sentiment. Look at Andrew Cuomo, with no moral center, doing any damn thing his contributors want. He only rolls it back when his popularity is swirling the bowl, and even then, not nearly enough to change much of anything. NYSUT and UFT leadership appear not to notice, and spend millions of our dues dollars on what appear to be pro-Cuomo commercials.

Thinking teachers and parents are paying close attention, though, and don't buy the "moratorium" nonsense that rolls back just a little bit of the test-based drek that passes for teacher evaluation in New York State. Our kids are still taking the same number of tests, including the ones that now seem to count for nothing whatsoever.

It's surreal that we live in a country where Bill Gates can dictate that test scores dictate the life and death of schools (not to mention the careers of teachers). Yet Gates sends his own kids to schools that aren't subject to his whims and caprices. Reformy folk like Gates, Rhee, King, Obama, Cuomo and Bloomberg opt their kids out of programs they impose by opening their wallets. When we do the same by declining to allow our children to take the tests, it's an outrage. The taxes we pay for our children's schools can be withheld, they say. Our children will suffer, they say, because we didn't conform. That's not taking care of those in their charge.

Of course, the folks above appear interested in taking care of only their own children. Otherwise, why would they impose a system they deem unfit for their own children on our kids? Of course there is hope for our kids. Opt-out is burgeoning in New York State, despite the druthers of test-happy zillionaires and the politicians crawling through their pockets. Parents and teachers aren't blindly accepting this nonsense anymore.

Classrooms don't need to be test-prep factories. Classrooms can be windows of kindness and encouragement in a tough world. A test-obsessed America makes that tougher each and every day. How can you be kind to children when you're gonna lose your job if they fail that test? It's an awkward balancing act, and every thinking teacher I know feels that pressure pretty much every moment.

Despite that, most of the kids know whether or not we care about them. Most of the kids know whether or not we have their interests at heart. It's harder for us, of course, because we're subject to all sorts of external pressures that have little to do with their welfare (not to mention ours). I can't imagine being a new teacher today, and trying not only to learn a very complex job, but concurrently dealing with all the red tape and nonsense that make actually doing the job a near impossible dream.

It's a balancing act, a juggling act, and it's really getting tougher to maneuver every single day. It's too bad we can't just do our jobs, help our students and give them that little bit of guidance they need. It's too bad these kids will lose so many people who could help them due to myopic to outright hostile leadership.

But we stand, we stay, and we care. How we broadcast that message over the Gates-propagated noise machine is just one more issue for us.

That's the message we get from Michael Mulgrew and his Minions in UFT Unity, and it's pretty consistent. Last Thursday I got an email from Mulgrew. Of course it was a mass email, as he's far too important to bother speaking directly to the likes of me (or you). It said that Cuomo's committee had recommended a multi-year delay in judging teachers by Common Core junk science. That was confusing to me.

After all, hadn't Mulgrew repeatedly told the DA that junk science was great? Under a "growth model" everyone would be happy and life would be a dream. Hadn't he told us that before the advent of junk science supervisors could rate us any damn way they pleased, and that we were basically stuck with whatever they said? Hadn't he touted the value of the wholly untested and unresearched "growth model?" Nonetheless, the committee's opposition to it represented a Great Victory.

Of course, the email neglected to mention what's contained here. Thanks to blogger Sullio for sharing this:

The Education Transformation Act of 2015 will remain in place, and no new legislation is required to implement the recommendations of the report, including recommendations regarding the transition period for consequences for students and teachers. During the transition, the 18 percent of teachers whose performance is measured, in part, by Common Core tests will use different local measures approved by the state, similar to the measures already being used by the majority of teachers.

Reading Mulgrew, you might think there'd be an absence of junk science. You'd think we'd be once again at the mercy of our supervisors. Yet capricious and whimsical though Mulgrew says they are, it would be yet another Great Victory. When they don't have all the power, it's a Great Victory. When they get it back, it's a Great Victory. And even though there have only been recommendations and nothing has actually happened, it's another Great Victory.

But even that may not be a good assumption. If the quote above is accurate, that means the recommendation is simply that we substitute one variety of junk science for another.  The draconian and vindictive 50% test score rating, enshrined in law, still stands, And the fact is it's still only a recommendation, not a fait accompli.

Also unaddressed was  the fact that, under our agreement, any teacher with two ineffectives is still guilty until proven innocent. The DOE no longer needs to bother proving those teacher are incompetent. Rather, those teachers will have to prove they are not incompetent.  Of course, whether or not that happens could very well hinge on the UFT Rat Squad. If they vote thumbs up for the embattled teacher, the DOE will have to prove incompetence, as they did 100% of the time before Mulgrew enabled this system, another Great Victory. And as Mulgrew told us at the DA, the Rat Squad only votes thumbs down 70% of the time. That, of course, is yet another Great Victory.

As you see, no matter what happens, it's a Great Victory for Michael Mulgrew and his army of oath signers. No matter what happens to us, or how we feel, they never lose. The fact that teacher morale is swirling the bowl and has been for almost a decade is neither here nor there. Because as miserable as you may be, as long as Mulgrew's Minions get the word out that everything is fine, there are conventions to attend and cushy union gigs to pick up. And best of all, competence is not a factor at all. All you have to do is show unconditional loyalty, and they don't even care if your school votes you out as chapter leader. Vote as they say and keep your gig.

I really have to wonder how whoever writes Mulgrews emails and op-eds manages to keep spitting that stuff out. Most thinking people would probably choke on it.

Right now we're looking at a system that entails only 20% state-imposed BS, and 20% local BS. This is a great system, according to UFT President Punchy Mike Mulgrew. I've seen him say so repeatedly. According to Punchy Mike, it's a great improvement over the last system in which principals could give bad ratings whenever they felt like it.

I suppose that might be true if it were not for the fact that 70% of those facing 3020a under the new system will have the burden of proof on them, rather than the city. They are guilty until proven innocent. Is that the American Way?

Actually, as a rule, the American Way is even worse than that. In New York, for example, unless there's a contract that says otherwise, people are at will employees. They can be fired for any reason or even no reason. That's one reason a lot of people have little sympathy for teachers. And rather than say we want what you have, they say we want you to be just as miserable as we are.

But teachers need to be socially conscious and politically active. Despite what you may read in the NY Post, we actually represent the children we serve. That's a fundamental part of our job. People may be surprised to learn that administrators who are indifferent or abusive to employees are often not a whole lot better with children. This is true whether said administrators are federal, state, or even hyper-local.

Under the current junk science-based system, teachers in NYC with consecutive bad ratings are facing 3020a. And despite what Punchy Mike said, principals can still give the very worst ratings based on their druthers. Anyone who contends that a Danielson rubric makes things fair is either delusional or disingenuous. Administrators can see what they wish to and ignore what they wish to. I've seen incontrovertible video evidence of that. There is no advantage whatsoever in the addition of junk science, and worse, even if a principal gives a positive rating the junk science can drag you down to ineffective. I've seen that too.

As for the much-vaunted UFT peer validators, the ones leadership maintained represented an improvement over the old system that was never even tested,  they have tanked 70% of those they observed. It must be very rewarding to send your brothers and sisters through a process that will almost certainly result in their termination. I can't remember whether it's 10 or 20K per annum the validators take for that particular service.

So while it will be nice if Cuomo's draconian and punitive new APPR is not enacted, the current one is already an abomination. Just because we don't move further backward is not cause for celebration.