The Common Core is staked by idealism, a lot of money and, in some cases, the desire for personal profit.  Some of the worst ideas in history have been staked by idealism.  People who love to play in the realm of ideas, but have little practical experience or foresight might think one set of standards spells equality.  In this case, it doesn't.  I would say it sacrifices our diversity to accept one definition of success molded by the power brokers in our society.

In theory, every student could learn the same lesson on the same day, if we relinquish the power of millions of minds to one set of educational dictators.  Then, as the UFT's Leroy Barr envisioned, his son could reluctantly say goodbye to the great state of New York and pick up on the same page in the equally great state of California.

But what is lost?  Freedom, for one; diversity for others, student interests and teacher strengths.  What is gained?  Professional negligence:  If students in one classroom cannot keep up, the train moves on without them.  When new lessons build upon old skills, the students are run over by the train.

Most Common-Core advocates surely don't desire a curriculum made uniform to the extent envisioned by Leroy Barr.  Still, one set of standards poses many of the same problems.  It also fails to recognize that many students have diverse skills which will allow them to soar in society, but only if the Common Core does not hold them down and crush them first.  Will the Common Core reward a student's musical genius, creative gift, or upside-down way of looking at things that might turn a problem on its head to solve it?  No, it looks past these things in the name of standardizing standards.

Common standards fail us because they treat children as interchangeable parts.  Children are distinct.  They possess so many diverse talents.  I have said before people are pieces of a puzzle.  Some fit together and some don't.  All are necessary, however, to complete the full picture.  No two are exactly the same.  Many years ago, I put together a thousand piece puzzle of the English countryside.  I'm not sure who in heaven's name gave me that gift, but it helped me to look closely at shapes.  There were hundred of pieces of green and hundreds of pieces of blue, but each was different, all were necessary.

The resolution adopted by the AFT in July is entitled, "The Role of Standards in Public Education."  No one would argue there is no role for standards in public education.  But many would very powerfully argue that standards should not be standardized.  The resolution exposes the Core's past weaknesses.   Yet, the resolution clings to the Core and advocates for a "support-and-improve" system.  It speaks of "promise and potential."  It advocates an "improvement plan" for a tragically flawed system.

In some ways, the UFT leadership is like a party elite in a communist state.  It views personal reward.  It  surely doesn't have to  suffer under the system like the average citizen.  It represses dissent through loyalty oaths with lucrative purse strings and now, oddest of all, through the supposedly iron fist of its president.  The Common Core may look good to some on paper, but to those who value democracy, it is impractical and intensely hostile.   In the name of "equality," it would destroy us.  The Common Core holds about as much promise as Communism.

You'd better sell out
You'd better not think,
You better watch out,
Which Kool Aid you drink,
Mulgrew's Paws are punching your face.

He's making a list,
He's checking it twice;
He's gonna find out who's loyal or nice.
Mulgrew's Paws are punching your face.

He sees you when you're voting,
He checks it's Unity,
He sees if you've defied that oath
That you won't travel for free.

The patronage gig, the matching t-shirts,
The fist that will smash your face till it hurts,
Mulgrew's Paws are punching your face.


You'd better support mayoral control
And ratings designed
To fire you all,
Mulgrew's Paws are punching your face.

He sees you when you're teaching
He knows if you talk to MORE,
He knows if you've been bad or good
So support that Common Core.

You'd better pay up
Your Unity Dues
You better shut up
When new contract screws
Members or he's punching your face.

You'd better shut up,
You'd better sit down,
You'd better spread party line all around,
Mulgrew's Paws are punching your face. 

He knows when you are aching
For a second pension job,
He knows you'll vote for contracts
Sight unseen or remain a slob,

When Bloomberg denies
A contract six years,
Sit down and shut up,
He'll buy you all beers.
Or those Paws are punching,
Great big Paws are punching,
Mulgrew's Paws are punching,
Your FAAAAAAACE.

Good morning dues payers. It's me, Mike Mulgrew, your president. A lot of you have been asking about my remarks at the AFT Convention a month ago. Though we live-streamed them, we didn't really think anyone would watch outside of the convention. We made it a point not to post my remarks over at the AFT website. But that darn Norm Scott came to the convention and filmed the whole thing, including my remark about punching anyone in the face who tried to take my Common Core.

That darn Zephyr Teachout is out badmouthing Common Core. I've got an entire team of UFT employees examining the issue of whether and when I'll have to punch her in the face. Frankly, we're hoping this whole residency thing will blow over, because if I punch her in the face without punching Cuomo in the face it will look like an endorsement. We're hoping to sit out this race and just let AFL-CIO endorse. 

A lot of people have been asking why I didn't punch anyone in the face when we went six years without a contract. For example, I could have punched Mayor Bloomberg in the face. But in solutions-based unionism, you have to look at the consequences. Mayor Bloomberg has a whole lot of money, and could have tied us up in court for a long time. Had I punched him in the face, I would have spent a lot of time in jail, sorely limiting the number of people I could punch in the face. And even if I'd punched them ALL in the face, I'd only have an hour of daily yard time to push them in the dirt. It just wasn't practical.


That's why I made it a point to tell the delegates I'd punch them in the face. Now you have to understand we were only in LA for a few days, so there wasn't a whole lot of time for face-punching. There are a lot of people in the Chicago Teachers Union, and while I'd certainly like to punch them all in the face, I'm not traveling to Chicago simply to do that. That would run at least 500 bucks of your dues money, even if I were to fly Spirit Air or some such thing. And that's not counting whatever the Hilton is charging this week. Just a weekend could run you duespayers 1500 bucks easy. Don't even get me started on that $12 draft beer that you pay for!

Sure, the Chicago teachers were at a parade or something yesterday and I could have punched an awful lot of them in the face, but I was here in NY, saving your dues. Anyway I have Saturday morning earmarked to watch pro wrestling. You'd be surprised at how many talking points you can draw from pro wrestling if you pay attention.

The NYC delegates need to know I will punch them in the face if they oppose Common Core. Since they've all signed loyalty oaths, it's unlikely they would do such a thing. In solutions-based unionism, you value your time. So since I threatened to punch people in the face for doing something they were highly unlikely to do, it's kind of a win-win. Now there are naysayers who will ask, "Hey Mike, why'd you bother to spend two million dollars in union dues to fly 800 people to LA when they aren't even free to decide how to vote? Couldn't you simply have gone yourself and voted 800 times?"

Now that's a good point. But in solutions-based unionism, when you threaten to punch thousands of people in the face, it's less likely you'll have to follow through when you have 800 people behind you. It's a practical thing.

Now a lot of city teachers oppose Common Core, and the overwhelming majority haven't been invited into our Unity club, and thus haven't signed the loyalty oath. This is a problem, largely because of logistical issues. For example, if I were to visit large schools in order to punch members in the face, I wouldn't be able to push them into the dirt unless we happened to be outside. Also, quite a bit of schools are surrounded by grass, and I'm not sure pushing them in the grass will suffice.

But anyway, I won't have to negotiate a contract for at least another few years, so if you oppose Common Core I will be free to punch you in the face sometime soon. Try to have your chapter leader get me into your school, and I'll punch all who need punching. I realize this will take up quite a bit of my time, but a promise is a promise.

Posted: 4 days ago

You've read about NYC teachers recruited through Craig's List-- while experienced ATRs from closed schools search in vain for full-time schools.   Are you inspired by Michael Mulgrew threatening to punch faces?  You may be considering training to become a UFT Unity leader.  Finally, we are proud to offer an accelerated program to meet all your needs.

Become a NYC Union Leader - no experience required! Subsidized Membership in a Boxing Gym. (New York City)

Train for a Year Bully for a Lifetime

compensation: $250,400+ with full benefits (amounting to more than an additional $25,000)

non-profit organization

The NYC Union Collaborative:
The NYC Union Collaborative is a new, practice-based union residency program that prepares smart, talented individuals to become highly effective union leaders in New York City. Subsequent to signing a loyalty oath, participants apprentice in a New York City union office for eight months (Jan. 2015 - August. 2015) prior to becoming a full-time union leader. During this time, participants experience hands-on training in a boxing ring, and targeted, ongoing coaching in a boxing gym of choice (no further need to waste time, pounding frozen meat) and fight back (in place of feedback) from skilled mentor pugilists and program staff.

Who Can Apply?
Participants come from a wide range of personal and professional backgrounds. No previous union experience or need to democratically listen to workers' voices is necessary. Through practical preparation, Union Partners are able to positively affect the lives of the rank and file while becoming certified union leaders.

Why Us?

• Top salary of at least $250,400 and full benefits following training experience (starting September 2015)
• Subsidized Training in a Boxing Gym
• $25,000 stipend during training experience
• Practice-based training residency
• Begins in January 2015!

The Collaborative Experience:
During the training period, participants work as "Union Partners in Residence" in under the guidance of an experienced union leader called a Collaborative Coach (CC). Union Partners also receive training from program staff on key strategies for successfully intimidating opposition via threats of fisticuffs, quelling dissent, and collaborating, when financially rewarding, with educational reformers . Meanwhile, they gradually assume increased leadership responsibilities throughout their eight month training period. Once they begin leading the union in the fall of 2015, Union Partners continue to receive coaching from program staff in the initial months of their first year that is tailored to their specific strengths and needs, including a regimen of drinking raw eggs, early morning runs and pounding of punching bags.

Participants also earn a subsidized Master of Pugilism degree by taking courses part-time while teaching, earning their degree over 2-3 years. The degree program supports participants' immediate work in union offices while laying the foundation for a career in union leadership.
Visit http://nycunionleadershipcollaborative.ttrack.org/ to begin your application today!

• Unity and New Action "Rubberstampers" only.  No MORE, please don't contact this job poster.
• do NOT contact us with unsolicited services or offers

post id: 460283286OMG

No contact info?

if the poster didn't include a phone number, email, or
other contact info, craigslist can notify them via email. 

UFT President Michael Mulgrew claimed he'd "punch" anyone in the face and "push" them "in the dirt" if they tried to take away his standards with their "cold, twisted, sick hands."

The "cold, twisted, sick hands" I see, however, are propping up the Common Core.  One hand shoves it down our throats while the other hand grasps some big bills accepted as grants to promote it.  Would the Common Core be anything less than a shriveled, deflated mess, if we took away all the money pumped into promoting it and the promise of future profits?

One observer said of Mulgrew's speech, "It was scary.  People were saying that he shouldn't be around children."  Educators, after all,  teach children to use the power of ideas, not the threat of physical violence.  In this light, Mulgrew's bully tactics, although popular with some segment of the crowd, were less than reassuring and would certainly land him in 3020a land if the setting had been a school.

But it was not.  And, no children were present.  Mulgrew knew this.  Although I object wholeheartedly to the Core, I'm guessing Mulgrew won't punch me in the face or order a henchman to run me off the road.  If this was his policy, there'd be a lot more people to run off the road.  There might even be more cars in the ditch than on the road.

I do believe, however, that there is another highly disturbing menace, one which worries me far more.  The observer who noted in the NY Daily News that Mulgrew's rant was "scary" "asked to remain anonymous to avoid Mulgrew's wrath."  If you have signed onto the UFT Unity ruling party, you must be loyalty-oath abiding.  If you speak against the boss, you sow the seeds of your own destruction.  Kiss your handsome double pension, lucrative extra-hours after-school job in union offices, and prestigious trips to conferences as a rubber stamp, goodbye!  No wonder the Union favors mayoral control and common standards for all.  They can be used to speak with one voice, that of leadership, like the UFT, and quell dissent.

Even though I doubt the sincerity of threats of physical violence, Unity is no less than a bully.  Unity has no use for people with independent ideas or the will to actually represent a constituency.  In this way, Unity closes the doors to some of the Union's staunchest and most talented defenders.   Integrity is a liability.  Unity doesn't even want its own "lower-downs" speaking at the Mike.  Unity delegates are useful for the illusion of democracy and for holding Mike's place in line for the Mike, but not for much more, certainly not for a fresh opinion.

You might want to blame Mike Mulgrew alone for this mess, but it is far more complex.  You could point to a "culture" of Unity leadership dating back to Al Shanker, but that doesn't do much for us for today or tomorrow.  I'm looking at Randi Weingarten.  If she wanted to address it, she could. Instead, she prefers a sham that sells out the rank and file of all parties, including Unity.

It was pretty surprising to see Mike Mulgrew tell the AFT convention that if anyone tried to take his Common Core, he'd punch them in the face. Evidently, this particular corporate reform is so valuable to us that we must fight for it. And since we have no voice whatsoever in AFT matters, with all union voice vested in the 800 rubber stamp loyalty oath signers we paid two million dollars in dues for Mulgrew to drag to LA, I guess that's the only voice we get.

When Bill Gates decided that teachers needed to be rated by test scores, Mulgrew was not punchy in the least. In fact, he told the DA a few years back that we needed to be part of this great experiment, and in my school several teachers got paid as he conducted an important experiment that none of his employees appeared to understand. This, of course, was a precursor to the brilliant Race to the Top, which led to NY State's APPR law. In fact, the UFT President participated in negotiating this law, and though I know not one single teacher who likes it, he was far from putting up his dukes over it.

When mayoral control came in, the UFT supported it. When it was proven beyond question to be a disaster, we supported it again. As a result of mayoral control, schools all over the city closed, and thousands of teachers ended up as ATRs. Some will never teach their own classes again. In fact, when Bill de Blasio became mayor and tried to stop this nonsense, he was overridden by Governor Cuomo and the legislature. Mike Mulgrew not only punched no one in the face, but lifted not a finger to stop this from happening. Could this have been some quid pro Cuomo? Only he and the UFT Prez know for sure.

The biggie, though, is the UFT Contract. Some of you may recall that we waited six years for it. While cops and firefighters and just about everyone got 8% salary increases between 2008-2010, we got diddly squat. And even after the contract was negotiated, we won't get what they got in 2010 until 2020. What did our two-fisted union leader have to say about that? He said something about retro pay not being a God-given right. This, in fact, is the sort of thing we should have been hearing from management.

And that's not all. We passed the worst pattern increase in my living memory onto our union brothers and sisters. Also, though most of the city unions didn't have any givebacks, we managed to establish a two-tier system of due process---one for most teachers, and another for ATR teachers. Mulgrew himself gave, as an example, shouting in the hall on two occasions as sufficient reason to dismiss an ATR. However, like the health care agreement that's uncertain, this will ultimately fall in the hands of arbitrators.

So when does union leadership get tough? Apparently, when parents statewide determine Common Core is a disaster. When parents are disgusted an arbitrary cutoff fails 70% of our children, rather than get behind them, we will oppose them. We'll say it's the implementation, which is sheer nonsense. In fact this was designed to fail 70% of our kids, and the results were announced before they were publicly released.

This, in fact, was designed to fool New Yorkers into believing that public schools statewide were failing. Arne Duncan's idiotic crack about white soccer moms whose kids weren't so bright pretty much confirmed that. But you don't mess with the mommies.

And our union ought not to be threatening to punch public school parents. In fact, when they disagree with corporate reforms designed to condemn public schools, they are our allies and staunchest supporters.

Art by Fred Klonsky

I was pretty surprised to see this ad on Craigslist. Apparently you can be a city teacher and utter lack of experience is no obstacle. When I started in 1984, I got my job via a subway ad, and lack of experience was about all I brought to the table. But times were different then. No one wanted this job. The city conducted intergalactic searches for anyone willing to sit in one of the ancient wooden chairs that sat in front of thousands of classrooms. Now reformy folks everywhere complain the standard for teachers isn't high enough.

Nonetheless, though there's actually a glut of teachers on the market, we're still not only recruiting people cold on Craigslist, but subsidizing their Masters programs. I'm all for helping people with education costs, particularly in such a miserable economy, but our priority ought to be getting experienced teachers working with kids, where they belong.

The Absent Teacher Reserve is the very worst consequence of the short-sighted 2005 UFT contract. I wasn't very active in union politics before then. I'd written a few pieces in NY Teacher, and I started this blog hoping to counter some of the anti-teacher nonsense I'd read in the tabloids. In fact, I was thrilled when Edwize popped up, thinking it would further aid the cause. I made an agreement to write for Edwize, and was about to fold this blog when the 05 contract popped up.

I could not believe how bad it was. I was shocked the union could agree to this. Edwize writers suggested the ATR was just a temporary stopgap, and that soon all the teachers would get jobs. They said such things had been done before. They failed to anticipate fanatical ideologue Joel Klein would continue to hire new teachers even as ATR teachers wandered in the contract-sanctioned purgatory that kept them from classrooms.

I fully understand there are people who don't belong in classrooms. I also fully understand, unlike Campbell Brown, that many of them are there because administrators failed to do their jobs, and that they remain because they still don't want to do their jobs. There's no justification for arbitrarily and capriciously removing teachers, despite their fond desires.

All the ATR teachers I know are there either because of school closures, or because the charges against them were not sustained. In the few cases with which I'm intimately familiar, the teachers are not at fault at all. I've spent a lot of time and energy trying to help these teachers, and I've gotten very good support from UFT to help them. Our results are mixed, but it's not for lack of trying.

The problem, of course, is that we allowed the ATR to exist in the first place. For many principals, there's no premium on experience. Better to have an entire staff of newbies, and then you don't need to worry about that pesky contract. Anyone who makes a stink is fired, and that's that.

Actually, this benefits neither teachers nor the kids we serve.

We have a union president who will stand up and say he'll punch people in the face if they take away his Common Core. What we sorely need, though, is a leader who'll get upset when teachers are not allowed to teach. What's more fundamental than that?

Ed. reformer name* ________________   *Hint:  You may wish to keep your identity secret.

I know we talk about this often, but it's important to understand that the fundamental nature of selecting our leadership is dishonest and designed to shut us up rather than elicit our participation. The million name ballot is a problem, of course, because almost no one knows who the hell is on it. Last time I voted, I checked a box for MORE, but I don't really know all of the people for whom I voted. I know and like some people from Unity, but I was voting against a machine, a philosophy.

Here's what that philosophy is--winner take all, no compromise whatsoever, and everyone else can go screw themselves. If you try to take Common Core from Mike Mulgrew he'll punch you in the face, he says, but the election is arranged precisely so no one can lay a hand on his beloved Common Core.

There are flaws in any democracy, of course. You notice when Jimmy Carter runs all over the world monitoring elections, he never establishes electoral colleges. So one point in favor of the UFT election is that the President is selected via majority voting. That's a good thing, particularly if you disregard the fact that most of the vote comes from retirees. Let's do that, for the moment. All working UFT members should and do get a vote on the President.

It's when we move down the ticket that things get confusing. There's a VP for Academic High Schools, for example. Wouldn't it make sense that high school teachers choose that person, who ostensibly represent their interests? Well, it doesn't make sense to UFT-Unity, who lost that office once. As soon as they got it back they changed the rules to make sure it never happened again. This position is now "at-large" and everyone gets to help us make that decision.

Should the entire UFT get to vote for our rep? Of course not. Each branch has different interests, and each branch ought to select the person who best represents those interests. But that's just the beginning. Actually, the overwhelming majority of positions in the UFT elections are at large.

It's entirely possible the Bronx may have different interests than Queens or Manhattan. For example, Queens gets less Title One funding than the Bronx and perhaps Queens reps could wish to fight for more. Perhaps your school has s disproportionate percentage of ELLs or special ed. students. Maybe the overcrowding in your school is worse than mine. Maybe the Eva Moskowitz school in your building is causing unique problems. Maybe it was not the best thing for your school when Cuomo gave carte blanche to Eva to do what she wished on our dime. There are countless possibilities, and our system insures the only issues raised are those that are pre-approved by leadership.

Can you imagine what the United States would be like if the entire country voted for every single political position? The entire country would choose your governor. They'd choose your mayor, your state senator, and your dog catcher.

It would actually make a lot more sense if, for example, the people chosen as chapter leaders in their local schools were delegates to NYSUT and AFT. These are the people we know and trust. But in the UFT, it's winner take all, and the only people who represent any of us have signed a loyalty oath to support whatever leadership tells them to support. That's why the President of the United Federation of Teachers can stand up at the AFT convention and say that if anyone took his Common Core he'd punch them in the face and rub their face in the dirt.

Who's gonna argue? Not the parents whose kids are suffering because of the ridiculous predetermined failure rate. Not the teachers, few to none of whom approve of the APPR Mulgrew boasted of. Not the 800 rubber stamps we spent two million dollars to send to LA.

Those of us who'd argue are excluded from participating. Those who were sent to LA are excluded from speaking unless instructed to. Rank and file is left with a huge tab for a convention that represents no one but leadership.

This is not democracy. It's a sham and it's unconscionable. This is no way to run an election, and it's no way to run a union.

Unless, of course, your goal is to just run it into the ground.

A lot of city teachers bellyache about how UFT leadership is inept. They say, "Oh, how come I have to wait until 2020 to get the money most city workers got five years ago?" And then they're all, "How come Mulgrew will punch you in the face and rub it in the dirt for Common Core, but doesn't get upset when there's no contract for six years?" And then, they're like, "How come I only get one day to defend my livelihood if I'm an ATR teacher?" Some of them are even, "How come I'm an ATR teacher instead of going somewhere I can actually work?

Lots of them these days are supporting this upstart caucus called MORE, which doesn't support that. Here's the thing, though. MORE may think that due process should apply to everyone. They may think Common Core doesn't merit any defense, let alone a violent one. They might advocate that, since we always took the city pattern when it was a piece of crap and had to give back to better it, that we shouldn't accept givebacks for a contract that's definitely inferior to the pattern.

But will they represent all six boroughs? Sure, there are MORE members in Manhattan, Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Staten Island. But ask yourself this--how many MORE members are there in Florida? Can you name one? Neither can I. On the other hand, there are plenty of Unity Caucus members in Florida. Not only that, but there's also a UFT office in Florida.

So next time there's a union election, you'd better believe Michael Mulgrew will be there in Florida making sure everything is hunky-dory for the UFT retirees. Do you think there will be any MORE presence there? Think again. Everyone in MORE is probably working in a classroom or something. How the hell are they gonna get to the Sunshine State without getting fired? Despite what Campbell Brown may think, people who don't show up for work quite frequently find there is no more work to show up to.

So remember, for those of you who want all six boroughs represented, your only choice is Unity Caucus. Remember, retirees make up 52% of the vote. It's very important that retirees have a large voice in determining who gets to negotiate new contracts. It's particularly important when you understand that new contracts don't effect them at all.

That's why the Unity leadership was smart when negotiating the last contract. Screw the people who resign, or get fired, or move into administration. They can't vote anyway. The sixth borough is well-served, and those who move there will remember the people who got them that money ten years after they earned it.

Remember, if you vote for those upstarts in MORE, they might try to change things so that only working school personnel gets to vote on who negotiates for working school personnel. And honestly, how is that fair?

I live about two blocks away from the water, which is nice, except when it comes to visit you. During Hurricane Sandy, it did that in a big way. My living room, kitchen and dining room were full of water. However, I had flood insurance, and it actually paid us to fix the house.

So when I got an application from NY Rising last April, I didn't bother to fill it out. After all, my house was fixed. We have new floors, new walls, new paint, and I went crazy and replaced the ceiling too, adding lights and all sorts of cool things. We even replaced my framed picture of Boris and Natasha with something that more resembles art.

Like everyone around here, we hope that we won't get another Sandy. One way to minimize damage in areas like ours is to raise your house up. When we first moved here there was a federal program that paid for maybe 70% of that, but given we were flat broke, laying out 30K was out of the question. Now the feds pay 30K max, so we'd have to lay out at least 70K. Kind of pricy to fix something for which you're insured.

But lo and behold, Governor Andy came to my town and announced that he had 300 million dollars to raise homes. Now before he was paying only to raise homes that were required to be raised. But now, he was paying to raise homes like mine that faced no such requirement. This sounded like a great idea.

But when I called NY Rising, it turned out I wasn't eligible. Stupid me, not applying for money I didn't need to fix my home that was already fixed. You see, in Andrew Cuomo's world you need to apply in April in order to be eligible for programs he announces in July. How reckless of me to not ask for money I didn't need. What a galoot I was to pay insurance premiums for 20 years rather than just sit around and hope for the best.

But I guess Governor Cuomo gets what he wants. He can be a big hero with our tax money and roll out a program that doesn't help many of those of us who need it. Rob Astorino criticized Cuomo for waiting until election time to help people, but actually Governor Cuomo's helping as few people as he possibly can.

Because every cent he fritters away on helping flood victims is one less cent to devote to lowering the tax bills of Mike Bloomberg, Cathie Black, Campbell Brown, Eva Moskowitz, and all the other people who know how to appreciate every darn cent they can get.

How can we prevent this nightmare world of reform?  My simple solution.  Don't let Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum set the terms of the debate!  Recognize that students' basic rights to a sound education are being denied, but it is not by their teachers.

I try to help kids every day, but they're all different. I'd like them all to pass, but they don't. It's funny because I feel very bad for many of those who don't. Yet NY State assumes that I want to pass them all for no reason and thus does not allow me to grade their standardized tests.

On the other hand, I was once at a meeting where we brainstormed ways to pass everyone. It was ridiculous. It's somewhat understandable, because when you instigate a culture in which you close schools based on test scores, in which you send teachers out as wandering subs, Campbell's Law says corruption will ensue.

But Campbell Brown's Law is different. Campbell Brown's Law says whatever goes wrong in school is the fault of the tenured teachers. If you fail, it's because the teacher had tenure and therefore failed you. Absolutely everyone is a great parent, so that has nothing to do with how children behave. Campbell Brown's Law says parents have no influence whatsoever on their children. If parents have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet, that will have no effect. If they provide no supervision because they aren't around, that won't affect kids either.

Campbell Brown's Law says kids themselves are not responsible either. If they don't study, that isn't their fault. The teacher should have made them study. If they fail tests because they didn't study, it's a crime and the teacher should be fired. Under Campbell Brown's Law the only obstacle to studying is if the teacher has tenure. This is unacceptable and it is therefore the reason that the parents work 200 hours a week. It's also the reason the kids didn't study. The kids figured they didn't have to study because their teachers had tenure.

Campbell Brown's Law is demonstrated in charter schools, where teachers don't have tenure. All kids excel in charter schools, except for those who don't. That explains why, in some charter schools, that all the students who graduate are accepted to four-year colleges. It's neither here nor there if two-thirds of the students who began ended up getting insufficient standardized test scores and getting dumped back into public schools. That's not the fault of the charter teachers, because they don't have tenure and are therefore blameless. Campbell Brown's Law says so.

In fact, as long as the teachers don't have tenure, it's OK for kids to fail in charter schools. And once again, all kids pass in charter schools, except for those who don't. That's why charter teachers, like students and parents, have no responsibility whatsoever. Also, under Campbell Brown's law, the charter owners aren't responsible either, and may continue to collect their half-million dollar salaries. That's not part of the problem because it's important for charter school owners to hobnob with the well-to-do. You can't just waltz into an Eva Moskowitz gala fund raiser in some tux you rented from the Men's Wearhouse.

And you'd better watch out if you teach ESL, like me. If your kids don't speak English and arrived in the United States five minutes ago, that's your fault too. Of course if you're a charter, you almost certainly don't accept kids like that so you're blameless. It's not Eva Moskowitz' fault she doesn't take those kids because she, after all, is not a tenured teacher and therefore earns every cent of her 500K salary. She can expand as much as she likes because Governor Cuomo says so, and not only does he not have tenure, but he also fires anti-corruption committees at will just because he can. 

In short, if you're a tenured teacher, you are an impediment to Excellence. The only way you can help children is by getting rid of your tenure, standing up straight and walking to Arne Duncan in Washington DC and saying, "Please sir, I want to be fired for any reason. Or for no reason. I want to take personal responsibility for all the ills of society. Neither you, society, poverty, parents, nor children themselves are responsible. I'm ready to be dismissed at the whim of Bill Gates or the Walmart family and I agree with you that Katrina was the bestest thing to happen to the New Orleans education system."

Me, I'm still a tenured teacher, and teaching teenagers can be trying sometimes.  Still, none of them seem to entertain theories remotely outlandish as those of Arne Duncan or Campbell Brown.

Exclusive--Seven families have filed a lawsuit in Albany claiming that their children received an excellent education due to teacher tenure. The parents are claiming that if the teachers had not had job protections they may not have taught their children. They further claim if their children's teachers did not have the freedom to make decisions regarding the education of their children the quality of education may not have been the same.

"There's no reason my kid should not receive an excellent education," said one of the parents. "The law should be changed to give teachers a larger voice in policy. Why should we tie their hands with Common Core nonsense when we could let teachers work with our kids depending on their individual needs?"

"Who the hell is Campbell Brown and what the hell do we need her for?" asked another. "She's clearly a publicity hound who doesn't know anything about our kids. How the hell can she consider using a parent who's on the payroll of Students First?  We trust our teachers."

When asked about news stories regarding the Campbell Brown lawsuit, another parent picked up the paper and read the following:

The complaint does not name the allegedly incompetent educators, but argues that tenure laws lead to bad teachers, a claim supported by some research.

In recent debate over the Common Core, NYSUT president, Karen Magee, said:

"I pose the questions to you today: If not standards, then what? A free-for-all? Everyone does what they please? No common base? No common method to look at what they're doing? ... The implementation of the common core in New York was absolutely an embarrassment; we were testing before we were teaching; the materials were not developmentally appropriate. That being said, we have an opportunity."

Magee is absolutely right.  The roll out of the Common Core in NY State was an "embarrassment" of grand proportions.  And, as we all know and can easily agree, we never had standards before the Common Core was handed down to us.  In fact, in delving into my archives, I discovered a picture of our planet pre-Common Core, barren, desolate, dry of ideas and pathetically "standardless."

The Educational Landscape Pre-Common Core:

Common Core made civilization possible.  Now, look how far we have come.

Civilization as it Stands Today, Many Thanks Owed to the Common Core:

Here are some pro-Common Core testimonials to further prove my point:

Testimonial #1:




Testimonial #2:



Testimonial #3:



For these, and many more testimonials in favor of the Core, visit the web address:  illtakebillgatesgrantmoneybutitwontmakemeanylessimpartial.com

Here is the rub:  If the New York State Education Department were a teacher, parents would be on the phone and NYSED would soon be called down to the principal's office.  In the hands of an apt administrator, NYSED would be sternly advised to change or denied tenure.  As it works out though, parents protest in great numbers (i.e., in Poughkeepsie), but instead of having any impact, future forums are cancelled and parents are dismissed as dupes.

NYSED continues its policies which violate basic teacher protocol.  If NYSED were a teacher, these policies would be completely unacceptable.

First, any tests that fail 70% of a class, let alone of NY's entire test-taking body, is a failure in itself.  The test makers, or those who set the cut scores, are out of touch with reality or, perhaps, too much in touch with some ugly political agenda. While politicians fail us, children will have their failure impressed upon them from a very early age.  They are the sacrificial lambs.

Second, the tests have "visceral" effects.  I do not see how this differs from child abuse, given modern definitions.  The tests cause children to become anxiety-ridden, agitated, possibly wee on themselves and/or throw up.  At the Success Academy, come testing time, teachers are given packets, including deodorizing powder to clean up vomit spills.  What kind of world have we created for young people?

The tests, and the required prep, take dear time away from students learning to enjoy art, music, social interaction, gym and life, in general.  It takes away from the ability of students to pursue their own interests.  Instead of choosing a library book to enjoy, students must open the same Pearson review book and set the "stopwitch" for timed practice.

The amount of time spent in physically testing students seems abusive as well, six days of long sitting.  Some children cannot sit this long.  Some children cannot focus this long.  I would argue childhood is the most important stage in a human's development.  And, it is, undoubtedly, compromised, if not ruined, by educational deformity.    No wonder these "deformers" won't practice what they preach upon their own children.  It is of little use to call your school's principal, Commissioner King, Mr. Obama, or even Mr. Gates, in this matter.  The government, instead of providing for the common welfare, is providing the Common Core--whether you like it or not!

I've been attending curriculum development workshops all week. We're looking at Common Core, without which no sentient being can function, and one of our sub-categories is rubrics. Yesterday we created some of our own.

I'll be frank. I have never liked rubrics. The first time I saw them was when a new, two-day, four-composition English Regents exam came out. I read the grading rubrics and got a general idea of what levels 1-4 meant. From then on I marked more or less holistically. I used to know one teacher who treated the rubrics with great reverence and examined them quite thoroughly. It was very rough partnering because by the time you finished a class set of essays this teacher would be on number 2 or 3, if you were lucky.

I've been teaching for 30 years. I'm pretty good about reading papers. I comment on them and offer advice as needed. One of the most frustrating things, to me, is watching a kid look at the paper, or not, and then crumple and toss it away. More motivated kids tend to reflect a little more. My question is this--after I spend time writing a rubric, who's to say kids wont toss them away too?

I kind of understand the thinking. There's got to be a way to get a good grade. What the hell is this teacher looking for? And it's true there are conventions, and mechanics, and standard usage. I like paragraphs and organization, and I like being able to easily understand things. But during the presentation I kept hearing words like "grapple" and "complex." The word "simple" is used as a pejorative. I think Pete Seegar said, of iconic American songwriter Woody Guthrie:

Any damn fool can get complicated. It takes a genius to attain simplicity.

People don't still sing This Land Is Your Land because they want to grapple with complex ideas. They sing it because it's direct and simple, because it hits you like an arrow to your heart. Still, dedicated Gates-o-philes want to measure things with lexiles and make kids read train schedules instead of To Kill a Mockingbird.

If I'm forced to use rubrics to rate my kids' essays I'll do it. I do, after all, get paid for this stuff. But I'm more comfortable issuing general checklists, which kids understand better, and then demanding particular and different things from particular and different kids for rewrites. Isn't that actually the elusive differentiation of instruction we hear about?

And, in fact, the essays and projects are fine, but we still have tests that overshadow and override them. No matter how many projects they do, my students, who don't necessarily know English yet, can't graduate until they pass an English Regents exam that tests very little of what it is they actually need to know. Grappling with complex text is not their first priority, and I'd argue it ought not to be the first priority of native-born kids either. That's what you do way better after you learn to love and appreciate reading, and something you do when you need to. It's not remotely how you teach. 

How can we differentiate instruction if the test is always the same, and the evaluation is always the same? In the quest to quantify everything, we're producing a lot of rules. It's hard for me to see, though, how we're producing critical thinking or better-equipped kids, unless our ultimate goal is to make them take more and more standardized tests.

Rockville Centre Principal Carol Burris has a whole series of pieces in the Washington Post, one better than the next. In her latest, she examines the odd formulas for figuring whether or not students need remediation. One is perhaps better than the next, but none appear to be anything worth jumping up and down about. Then she says this:

 Two studies found that student GPAs were a far more accurate predictor—reducing severe placement errors by about half. Another study of remediation found that nearly 25 percent (math) and over 33 percent (English) of remedial course placements in one urban system were “severe under-placements” due to the COMPASS test. In short, lots of kids get placed into remediation who really do not need it.

Teacher judgments are more accurate than the various standardized test-based formulas that were dreamed up by the various geniuses who dream up such things. And this is valid even now, in an era where teachers are pressured to pass as many kids as possible in order to avoid the draconian high stakes attached to student failure.

There's an underlying belief that we are dishonest, that we are worthless, that our judgment is clouded, and that belief is underlined by the stupid Regents-induced law stating we can't grade our own students on standardized tests. Clearly I will just pass everyone for no reason, and consider myself a genius for having done so. And so will you, of course. We are all worthless dogs. The law says so.

Sometimes when we complain about the junk science evaluation system, UFT leaders say, "But it's the law!" The implication of that, of course, is that it's the Ten Commandments, it's written in stone, and it will never, ever be changed. They forget, of course, that they had a part in writing the law. Will that law be on the books forever? Will the law that implies we're all a bunch of crooks be on the books forever?

More importantly, if we're all so crooked that they need to hire banjo players from Kentucky to grade tests for 8 bucks an hour, how did any of us get hired in the first place?

Here's the point--the test-writing geniuses are not geniuses after all. We're not geniuses either, but we are teachers. We do know our students. We know their strong points and weak points. We know where they need help, and when to leave them alone. And despite our not being geniuses, we're not vain enough to design one test for every kid in the state, the country, or the world and say, "Anyone who fails this test is not good enough, and anyone who passes is."

I'm a public school parent. I assumed all my kid's teachers to be good unless I had reason to believe otherwise. On those rare occasions, I called the school, talked to people, and worked out whatever needed to be worked out. Sometimes I was right, and sometimes I wasn't. But I went and found out. I don't expect teachers to be perfect. I don't expect them to be geniuses. I expect them to be reasonable.

And reason is the one thing I never seem to find in the people who make decisions about how public schools are run. Teachers are the scapegoats, but we're not the problem.

To my mind, the worst thing about the 2005 UFT Contract was giving up seniority transfers and the UFT transfer plan so that veteran teachers could become ATR teachers. Rendering them week to week wandering subs a few years back made that even worse. And the cherry on that cake was giving them second-tier due process rights, the very worst thing about the 2014 UFT Contract.

The second worst thing about the new UFT Contract is kind of a toss-up for me. But right up there in the running was screwing the members who resigned rather than retired. After all, they did the work. Maybe if we'd gotten a timely contract some of them would still be doing the work. Who knows? But now some of them have a lawsuit demanding back pay, and there is no reason on God's green earth they don't deserve it. Cops, firefighters, DC37 members, and just about everyone else got it already.

I'm not a lawyer, so maybe there's something I'm missing here, but why are they suing the UFT? Is the union financially liable for negotiating a substandard contract? If so, they're liable to be tied up in litigation for decades. Perhaps the UFT should know that union means we are one, and that people who can no longer vote in elections ought to be entitled to whatever everyone else was entitled to at the time. But to me, this seems more a question of definition of a word, or fundamental ethics.

It seems to me the city should be liable to pay the prevailing rate for actual work done. I have no idea why UFT, which does not pay salaries, ought to pay salaries. But if I were UFT I'd be very wary about these cases, because if one person wins, every single other person will be suing them too. I don't know how much money that cost, but they may find themselves wondering whether it was a great idea to send those 800 rubber stamps to Los Angeles when they could've just sent one person to vote however leadership decided.

On the other hand, the whole "ethics-shmethics" tone of this contract was bound to become problematic. Still, it's the city who should pay every single person who worked when the contract was in force. Maybe they can pay them over 20 years or whatever, like they're doing with us, but they have to pay them nonetheless.