There's an interesting point of view in the Daily News. Apparently, the issue with the "Renewal" schools in New York City is that they have an inordinate percentage of "lower quality" teachers. This assumption, of course, is based on the research of reformy Chalkbeat NY, nee Gotham Schools, which finds it noteworthy when E4E can muster 100 signatures on a petition demanding more work for less pay, but can't be bothered to cover a massive demonstration against Cuomo's policies.

First, let's look at the definition of a "lower quality" teachers. This particular person is someone who scores developing or ineffective on a rating system even Andrew Cuomo labels "baloney" (notwithstanding his enthusiastic support for it at its inception).  Unlike Cuomo, those of us who actually believe in science and research called it junk science from the start. That includes people like Diane Ravitch. In fact, even Randi Weingarten, who ran around the country helping to negotiate crap evaluation systems eventually admitted "VAM is a sham."

These systems are all a result of the Gates MET study, a convoluted piece of crap that set out to prove yet another theory emanating from Mr. Gates' fruitful hind quarters--that we need to replicate whatever teachers do in classrooms in which students receive high test grades. This, of course, is the central theory behind reforminess. Public schools, Gates theorizes, are no good because kids don't score well enough on standardized tests.

The fact is, though, that every so-called failing school contains high concentrations of high-needs students. There are kids who live in poverty, kids who have special needs and kids who don't speak English. And please, before some preachy moron gets the notion I'm giving up on those kids, the fact is I spend every day of my working life trying to help those kids. And what my kids need is help learning English, not help passing a test.

I spent a few years teaching ELLs how to pass a test. Some genius in Albany declared that it didn't matter whether or not kids knew English, and in order to graduate high school they needed to pass the English Regents exam anyway. I was drafted. I made kids pass and didn't teach them fundamentals of English language because it wasn't necessary for the test. Kids who passed may have assumed it meant they knew English, but I can assure you they did not. It meant they knew a highly formulaic four paragraph essay good for nothing but that version of the test, and it meant they knew how to look for correct A, B, C, D answers in Regents texts. It meant absolutely nothing more.

I was happy for kids who passed, but I did not fool myself for a moment that it was because I was a great teacher. It was because I made them write until their hands fell off. It was because I made them rewrite everything, no matter how tedious, and it was because I read and critiqued every word they wrote. It was no fun, neither the kids nor I liked it, but they tended to pass the stupid test in higher numbers than they would have without it. Of course their actual writing was no better than before, and they surely failed college writing tests in droves.

Here's the thing--if you are the principal, charged with running a so-called failing school, are you gonna say yes, the school is failing, and all the teachers are excellent. It is therefore an anomaly, a veritable miracle of nature. Are you gonna say the students are no good? Are you gonna tell the truth, that you in fact have high concentrations of high needs kids and there is really nothing you can do about it? Is that gonna get you that desk job at Tweed that will afford you the much-needed time to work on your oragami? Those paper airplanes are not gonna fold themselves, after all.

Of course not. You're gonna observe the teachers and blame them. It's remarkable, in fact, that the negative observations are a mere 20%. Now, you can accept the observation system as the Ten Commandments and assume principals in troubled schools have no self-interest whatsoever.

Or, you can face the actual issue of rampant poverty in NYC and the United States. You can face the fact that non-English speakers tend to settle in cities, where there is work. You can face the fact that most of them cannot, in fact, afford to live in Scarsdale. You can face the fact that the necessity of working 200 hours a week to support one's self and family is not conducive to thoughtful and thorough parenting.

Or, you can accept Bill Gates' formulaic solutions, which are to education as my ELLs' four paragraph compositions are to writing. That is what much of the public does, and that is what many editorials, up to and including those of the NY Times, encourage.

It's on us to get the truth out, and we have our work cut out for us.

But you can still read my personal message to Governor Cuomo in today's Daily News.

A few years back, two hedge-fund operators approached me.  We brainstormed a wonderful idea, a new, no-excuses charter chain to improve upon Eva's model.  We naturally named it the Perfection Academy, thereby letting everyone know that we are infinitely better than mere Success!

Eva's Academy publicly ranks its kids along walls of shame.  The kids at the bottom, those in the red zone, are the losers!  Everybody knows it.  Kids who do well stand up when their scores are called.  Kids who fail to make the grade stay glued to their seats.   We, at Perfection Academy, do better.  Anyone in the bottom 50% deserves public humiliation.  We issue  Perfection-Academy Dunce Caps in neon orange to match the color of our jumpers which serve as school uniforms.



Eva's students wee on themselves.  Have no fear there are closets chocked full of fresh underwear and sweatpants.  We do better.  We issue our students Depend Diapers, fitted for maximum protection.  Students wear them on all testing days, practice and real, including the two Saturdays prior to the exam when they practice with perforated sheets.  Parents want this.  They will tell you so.  It keeps their kids focused on achieving with "maximum absorbency."  We also use deodorizing powder to soak up vomit because it smells lovely!  During practice exams, students learn to aim away from their test papers.  Pearson accepts no vomit!
Eva's classrooms are named for the colleges from which their teachers emerged--even long after the teachers have quit in exasperation.  We have a better idea.  We name our classrooms for hedge-fund contributors.  They never quit!



Eva's kids suffer an inordinate amount of suspensions.  As she has aptly proven, kids who can't sit down and shut up don't deserve an education.   Kids can be brutal.  And, if you've just come to teach fresh out of the ivy League, you probably have no idea how to handle kids who don't sit straight, stare or kowtow.  We share in Eva's belief that students need to sit with hands clasped.  We, however, additionally recommend that while clasping hands, they genuflect, praying to do well on their State exams.  God's never too busy to listen to the fervent prayer of a Perfection-Academy student.  Our test scores are living proof!
Eva offers great rewards to kids who do well.  They get Popeye's chicken, candy, basketballs and Nerf guns.  We, at Perfection Academy, do better.  We know kids don't want books, science kits or any of that "shit."  So, we, give them pure sugar. It can be taken orally or administered intravenously.
Teachers at Success work eleven-hour days.  Our teachers show far greater dedication.  At our school, our teachers work seventeen-hour days because everyone knows the human body can survive on only a few hours of sleep.  If teachers burn out, there are always new kids, out of college, happy for any job.  They have no family and they live with Mom.  They love teaching.  They are the kind of people we want in our classrooms.  Experience means little and it sure saves a lot on pensions!
Eva stores student information on vast data bases.  Everyone is ranked.  We do better.  We sell this information to companies that proposition us.  Then, our students are free to receive lots of wonderful opportunities to buy stuff or have their identities stolen.  If necessary, this information can be used by future employers to help them track their workforce from Kindergarten forward.
At Success, they have closets always stocked full of every imaginable amenity.  We do better at Perfection Academy.  All you need to do is walk up to our closet.  Rap on the door three times, wish for what you want and the closet magically supplies it.*

*There is also an accompanying deduction of equal value from your paycheck.

Success Academy doesn't offer foreign language until eighth grade.  (We all know the lack of importance of language in our modern world.)  Kids who can't pass practice tests lose their extracurricular art and music.  But, remember, whatever isn't necessary for tests, isn't necessary for life.  At Perfection Academy, we agree.  Our curriculum is dedicated 120% to pure test prep.
At Success Academy, they don't backfill past fourth grade.  They can't have their carefully weeded kids mixing with God only knows who.  We can't either.  Parents don't want that!  That is why, we, too refuse to backfill.  We've taken the Success model and made it even stronger.  We do not backfill past kindergarten.  Such a policy proves extremely effective.  Last year, our first class had a 100% passing rate on the state tests.  Those three kids are destined for perfection!

We avoid subgrade soil by refusing to backfill past kindergarten.

I know you want your kids to be creative.  I know you have your doubts about whether performing well on one set of tests will transfer over to a healthy and productive life.  But why bother yourself by asking such questions?  Such questions never appear on tests.  Perfection implies you are compliant.  You follow orders.  You bow your head.  You're ready to work for "The Man" or it could even be "The Woman" (like Eva)!  If you're ready to work unquestioningly and do whatever you're told, whether you're a student or a recent college grad, Perfection Academy is the place for you!!!

Every day I read the news and I feel like I'm in the middle of a Fellini movie. Cuomo makes a big threat, that 50% of our evaluation will be based on test scores, and the other 50% will be observations. He also says that, because administrators tend to actually like the teachers they hire, that someone else must rate the teachers. He wanted to give outside administrators 35 of the 50%, but now it looks like, in the only concession to that plan, it may be a little less.

This happens while Cuomo's popularity is at its absolute low ebb. The Democratic Heavy Hearts Club declares, gee, we didn't want to do this, but what the hell we're gonna do it anyway. Assemblyman Ron Kim, who I watched give an inspirational pro-teacher speech in a Bayside UFT forum, drops his professed ideals and votes for it anyway. Mulgrew declares it a victory and thanks the folks who voted for this atrocity. Next month at the DA he'll speak to rousing cheers, because no one who wants the $749 for the glorious Buffalo trip is allowed to do differently.

Most teachers in NYC are not paying attention.  Everyone knows that Mulgrew and his people are gonna win the next election no matter what, and most working UFT members will once again not bother to fill out a ballot. NYSUT's President Karen Magee can keep giving mouth service to opt out, and she can oppose the Cuomo plan, but where the hell was she when the guy was actually running for governor? Where was she when Zephyr Teachout wanted the Working Families nomination? And where will she be when Mulgrew decides he needs someone more cooperative in 2017?

There are distinct advantages of not paying attention. You don't have to fret over what evaluation system they're using this year. All you have to do is read the UFT guide on whatever the hell it is that's supposed to be good teaching this year. Then you do it and hope you don't get fired. After all, as Cuomo said, lots of teachers haven't been fired. In fact this is actually the first year UFT teachers can face 3020a over this, and we won't know until September just how many that will be.

Of course, one measure of how good this system is would be how many teachers were rated ineffective year one and then did better year two. That would reflect how many teachers were actually helped by this system. If a lot of them were, perhaps it means the system worked at some level. Of course, not putting people under the amazing stress of having their jobs at risk might have worked out better. Who knows? Certainly not anyone who thinks it's a good idea to change APPR in NYC three years in a row. That's a terrible idea. Just as you get accustomed to a new system, it's history, garbage, out the window and on the trash heap.

For the majority of UFT members, the ones who don't get involved, they've spent a lot less of their valuable time focused on this. They've been home spending time with their families, catching up on TV shows, visiting the sights, and enjoying themselves a lot more than those of us who've been reading the papers, going to demonstrations, and calling our elected representatives.

As long as most people aren't going to actually do anything, Cuomo can do whatever he likes and his deep-pocketed supporters will be happy. As long as most people aren't going to do anything, NYSUT and UFT can go to conventions, make speeches, and enable Cuomo and his BFFs to continue with their destructive plans. The only downside, really, is that our kids will have to suffer through test prep instead of receiving an education. That, and their job opportunities will be severely limited once they graduate from test prep.

But if you can live with that, then, hey, roll out the hammock and take a nap. No sense getting all in a tizzy over things you aren't gonna bother to change anyway.

There's still time to refuse the test.  You will need to take action soon.  The tests begin Tuesday.  Send a letter.  And, as you do so, be brave.  You may receive no response--or you may receive a letter delivered express, hoping to change your mind.

I wrote my opt-out letter over Christmas.  I received no formal response, but one of my child's teachers informed me during conferences she was aware of the situation.  As she had once taught an older sibling who opted out, I knew she would not force children to sit and stare.  Instead, students engage in academic pursuits of far greater value than test taking.

My friend opted our more recently.  She received a formal letter from an assistant superintendent of her district.  It was quite involved.  She was informed her child would be "provided with grade-appropriate literature in lieu of the assessments."

The letter, however, was worded to make the reader think twice about opting out a child:  "While we understand your concern..., please be reminded that there is no provision in New York State statute or regulation allowing parents to either actually or effectively opt their children out of state assessments."  The letter might also state that neither is there "actually or effectively" any prohibition of parents opting out kids.  Someone is running scared.

At fairtest.org, one can read about the possible ramifications of refusal.  There are next to none.  The only possible problem for a school district might result, it seems, if the school is in the bottom 5% due to a 95% rule, formulated to prevent schools from discouraging their weakest students from taking tests.  If these schools fail to meet AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) for two consecutive years, they may need to set aside 15% of their Title I funds to either transport kids to a non-failing school or to provide tutoring services.  Schools that do not receive Title I funds, however, are exempt from NCLB and, thus, seem unlikely to suffer at all.  My friend's school would fall into the latter category.

Yet, the letter grew quite legalistic, doubtless, in the hopes to confusing parents and, perhaps, changing their minds or discouraging more refusals.


The school defends the tests as "an evaluation of student mastery of content and skills in various courses of study and helps shape future instruction."  This school district seem to miss much of the controversy over the validity of these exams, the duration of these exams, the stress engendered by these exams and the political ends to which these exams are used and their cut scores set.  This school district seem immune to considerations of the perversion of education that has become test prep.  This school district seems unnecessarily worried about refusals counting against its "district's participation rate."

The letter concludes by noting that the District is legally obligated to determine whether or not students who opt out need Academic Intervention Services "through the use of other measures," including prior State Assessments, local assessments, reports from teachers and "progress monitoring."  The letter reminds the parent that "if a student requires additional services through AIS to make progress, the District is obligated to provide them."

If children are in need of academic intervention services, I would guess the schools have already made parents aware of the fact.  If the test alone was a measure, close to two-thirds of our kids would need academic intervention services.  Indeed, if the 100% proficiency rates demanded by NCLB were enforced, all of our schools would be failing.

After thoroughly attempting to confuse the issues with convoluted language and references to mumbo jumbo, the letter concludes, "I hope the above has clarified any outstanding questions you have about [required participation]... in the state-mandated assessments and the District's continuing obligation to determine their eligibility for AIS in the event that [the student]...refuses state assessments."

I guess this school district missed the part of the parent letter stating that the student is refusing the state assessment, or, perhaps, they hope their long-winded letter might change a few minds.  It wouldn't be changing my mind and hopefully it wouldn't change yours.  Remember, even the President's kids, sheltered at the Sidwell Friends School, aren't subject to any of this testing crap created by his administration for the rest of us.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When the 750 from U.F.T.-Unity "shuffle off to Buffalo" with their handsome stipends of $749 each to vote as a bloc (per their loyalty oath) at the N.Y.S.U.T. convention, dues-paying members have a right to know who calls the shots.

It's not just a concern to U.F.T. members.  Given the weight of the U.F.T., it's a concern to all N.Y.S.U.T. members, Teacher Unions across the country and, indeed, Unionism in general.  If the U.F.T. makes some resolution, sets some pattern, it can potentially plague Unionism nationwide.  We all need to know who is at the keel.

The U.F.T. has an Executive Board, yet, from what I've read, the Board seems to move through the motions and rubber stamp stuff as if loyalty was top on their list, too.  They don't seem to call any shots.

"At Exec after Exec, Unity members sit and listen. Some never speak. Most rarely speak."

But to whom are they loyal?  We need to know.  We have a right to know.

I know there's a Carpenter who is the public face of Unity, and, be it known, I have nothing against carpenters.

An entirely different Carpenter.  This album is a fine bit of craftsmanship!

In fact, some of the best people in history have been carpenters.  But when public education is being whittled away, one wonders if the Carpenter is calling the shots.  Is he the mastermind or is he just at his workbench following someone else's designs?  Some say Randi has the blueprints and they may be right.  I would like to know.

We have a definite right to see the faces, read the biographies and understand the guiding philosophies of those who pull the strings.  These people, whoever they are, ultimately hold a controlling interest in N.Y.S.U.T. and the A.F.T.  Dictating policies and then watching their minions vote as a bloc, they can make or break Unionism in the United States.  These people should step forward and tell us who they are--because we all know the process is anything but democratic.

If these persons come out in favor of annual Pearson tests, Gates'-funded Core and fail to support the I-refuse movement, we need to know their identities.

And, who calls the shots to accept class sizes in excess of contractual agreements in NYC?  One Queens school reportedly had six over-sized classes as of last week.  Another, with which I am more familiar, had 84.  An arbitrator decided last year that teachers of over-sized classes would be relieved of their C6 (professional) duties in lieu of enforcing class-size limits per our contract.  This was supposed to make everything fine, and our Union seemed happily on board, selling it to us as a victory, but it's a failure of grand proportions.  It makes contractual limits on class size meaningless.

As well as endangering our  power as a Union to enforce class-size limits, it does untold harm to students and strikes at the interests of parents.  It is a terrifying sign of the erosion of our power and the willingness to compromise our basic integrity.  We put ourselves at odds with the interests of parents and teachers.

So, tell me who bargains away our integrity?  Who negotiates away our hard-won rights?  Are they earthlings?  Are they retirees?  When was the last time they taught in a classroom?  When was the last time they had a child in the public-school system?  What motivates them to fail in our name?

They compromise with those who would destroy us.  And then they seem surprised when they actually try to destroy us.  They dilute Unionism and detach it from community interests.  They leave us feeling detached, weak and relatively powerless.  They leave us open to the next challenge.

We have a right to know their identities.  We have a right to know their numbers.  And, if there's any logic to their ill-conceived plans, we also have a right to know--because they are gumming up all of our works.  Let us see their faces.  Let us at least be sure they are human.

I teach kids who arrived here yesterday. If their test scores don't pass muster, according to the bill the Assembly passed with heavy hearts, I cannot be an "effective" teacher. Interestingly, the tests they use for my kids have evolved too. My colleagues tell me that the NYCESLAT test, designed to determine which level our students are on, is now based on Common Core standards.

I went to workshops last summer with paid "experts" who could not identify appropriate Common Core standards for my students. After a while, they suggested I use elementary standards for my high school kids. It was ridiculous. For years I've been hearing talk of how we should differentiate instruction, and judging teenagers by elementary standards seemed, at best, less than ideal. I know exactly how my kids would feel about that. They'd feel belittled, insulted. I feel the same way.

Teaching English to language learners is completely different from teaching it to native speakers. NYSED doesn't know that because they are ignorant of language acquisition and don't care enough to learn or even consult with experts. I'm not an expert, but I know that close reading is not a skill most of my students need. In fact, in time their reading abilities in their first languages will transfer to English. The question is--how much time will it take? It's tough to say.

Acquisition of a language is quite different from studying geometry. It's not really about sitting down and memorizing formulas or rules. A lot of it is about how kids feel. Kids dragged kicking and screaming from their home countries learn English more slowly than kids who are happy. Kids who've been taught that school entails sitting down, shutting up, and regarding teachers as deities tend not to participate. And language, despite what NYSED may believe, is all about participation. How much time do we devote to speaking and listening as opposed to reading and writing? I'd argue most of it, and I write just about every day. Most people write less than I do.

Native speakers know the rules of their first languages perfectly. There are those who argue that native speakers make mistakes, but they don't. We speak what we hear, and that will vary depending upon where we come from. Anyone who tells you the grammar book is the Ten Commandments doesn't know much about grammar. There are two types of grammar--prescriptive, in which you do whatever the grammar book dictates, and descriptive, in which you describe the way living people use living languages.

My students arrive with little knowledge of living grammar. Some of my students have five or ten years worth of studying English, and know how to do nothing but take tests. I'd argue that, or even knowing how to read a language, is not a highly practical skill if you're going to make a life in a place where that language is used every day.

So the thing is this--I MUST show these kids the rules, or they will have to pay to learn them elsewhere. I MUST make them speak up, or they will be unable to manipulate their way through our society. I don't care what the Common Core advocates say. They don't know what kids with whom I've worked for decades need. They have manuals and checklists, but I have experience. I realize there's not much of a premium on that nowadays, particularly if your experience is in teaching.

I'll continue to help these kids for as long as I can. It's clearly the goal of Cuomo and his heavy hearts club legislature to make that as short a run as possible. Nothing to do now but fight him, and the first step is waking up to do our jobs every working day.

Watch out teachers, it's me again, "Punchy" Mike Mulgrew, and I'm swingin' wild! You'll take my Common Core out of my cold dead arms, baby! But I'm not here today to punch your face out. I'm here to explain the new legislation, and why we told legislators it was okay if they voted for it.

First of all, there's been a lot of bitching about the expedited 3020a process. Why should there be only one arbitrator instead of three? The fact is it's been that way in New York City for a while, so why shouldn't the rest of the state have that too? You see, this way, while other people may have lost something, we haven't lost anything. So that's a win for us. Well, anyway, it's not a loss for us. Why should we worry about everyone else? Not our job, man.

And fer cryin' out loud, while there may be one or two items that suck in the budget, we got more money, and more money is always a good thing. Sure, you won't get any of it, and your class sizes won't be reduced, but you don't think outside evaluators grow on trees, do you? Someone has to pay for supervisors to drive back and forth to schools and observe classes about which they know nothing whatsoever. It's always good to get a fresh perspective on why you suck how you can better deliver instruction.

And hey, we have a very friendly chancellor. Sure she talks about getting rid of teachers, but I'm sure she doesn't have you in mind when she says stuff like that. She's talking about those other teachers, you know, the ones who are not you, so you don't have to worry.  A lot of people don't understand the importance of union. Union means we stand together and do whatever I tell you to do. That's why we have a loyalty oath, and that's why every single person who represents you in NYSUT and AFT votes any damn way I tell them. That's democracy. Let me tell you, it isn't easy to get an organization this large to not oppose the likes of Andrew Cuomo when he runs for re-election.

We also trust that our friendly chancellor will make fair deals with us on receivership, so that if your school gets taken over and you have to reapply for your job it won't be so bad. We've got a great record with school closings. Just ask any ATR how they like traveling school to school week to week, fighting for bathroom keys. And make no mistake, we support your right to have a bathroom key. 

And don't worry if you get an ineffective rating or two. Sure they can end your career and all, but we've arranged it so that 13% of you can actually get a fair hearing. In fact we've already won one of those hearings, and what's better than that? You only have to worry if you're one of the 87% who faces a kangaroo court and doesn't get a fair hearing, so chin up and all that. Remember, in union we stand together, and we the leadership will decide which 13% of you get a fair hearing. What could be better than that? You trust us, don't you?

Please don't go reading stuff like this that says the mayor did indeed get his 50%. I mean, that's just simple math. I'm just a regular guy, an ex-carpenter. It's all I can do to not spout a stream of obscenities right now for no reason. And don't get all in a lather over Merryl Tisch talking about exempting high performing districts. There's no way New York will be included, and a fundamental facet of unionism is that we care only about ourselves.

In fact, it's a good thing if Tisch is trying to shut up those yammering Long Island parents always going on about opting out. Maybe if their districts aren't affected they will stop screaming. After all, the highest body in the UFT, the delegate assembly, just killed two opt-out resolutions, and failed even to bring up our own watered down and meaningless resolution, the one that reaffirmed our faith in teachers being evaluated with junk science. As a UFT member, you should be happy that there's a possibility these folks will stop making me look bad.

So, in summary, trust us, don't read the blogs, don't listen to Carol Burris or Diane Ravitch or any of those other loudmouths out there, a thousand points of light, and ask yourself this--under my leadership, are you better off than you were a year ago? If the answer is no, ask yourself this--under my leadership, is Mike Mulgrew any better than he was a year ago?

Whatever the answers are, remember, as a unionist, it's your duty to sit down, shut up, and do whatever I say. And if I say things don't suck, that should be good enough for anyone.

I'm not often at a loss for words, but the depth and breadth of the Great Democratic Assembly Sellout of 2015 is hard for me to take. I watched Ron Kim, whose speech I admired at the Bayside forum, speak to the Assembly about how bad the bill was and explain he was voting for it anyway. He did so for the money, the money that is attached to the worsened APPR.

I have watched Mulgrew ridicule those of us who opposed APPR. He said look how few ineffectives there are. That has certainly come back to bite him (and by him I mean us) in the ass.  The flaw Cuomo saw was that there weren't enough teachers being fired, and the fix for that is the new evaluation system.

And then there's this:

While NYSUT President Karen Magee urged lawmakers to reject the measures, city lawmakers said they were told by Mulgrew’s team that voting for the package would not be held against them.

That's horrifying. I just called my State Senator, who voted for this atrocity, and told him not only there was no way I'd ever vote for him in the future, but that I was also considering opposing him myself. That this could be condoned in any way by leadership is unacceptable, and if there is no truth to this report UFT should sue for libel. Our COPE dollars supported these Assembly members, and ought not to ever do so again. I contribute to COPE, but at this moment I have no idea whatsoever why that is.

This APPR system, of course, appears to be the "growth model" that Mulgrew contends is somehow acceptable, but which nonetheless has never been proven to be valid in any way whatsoever. There will be fancy formulas that no one understands, and if not enough teachers get fired they'll go back to the drawing board and come up with something even worse. Because make no mistake, that's exactly what happened this time.  Tisch says now it won't be 50%. Maybe it will come out 40, but the optimal percentage of junk science, judging teachers by test scores, in teacher evaluation is precisely zero.

And it certainly looks like they have their eye on getting rid of teachers who don't get those test scores. Get rated ineffective on test scores and you can't get an overall good rating. Who the hell is going to want to teach the kids I serve? And when an independent evaluator comes in, how will he or she know that the kid I'm not asking questions just came from China, or El Salvador, or Korea, or Egypt the day before yesterday, and that I'm trying not to humiliate her by putting her on the spot right away? 

And then, of course, there is the fact that permanent licenses are no longer permanent, a backdoor way to dump senior teachers for no reason whatsoever. Forget to register, and who knows what the hell that will entail, and it's no more license, no more tenure, and no more job. I have seen that happen to people who didn't keep up with their paperwork, and it's no fun at all. 

Then there is the failing schools model, and it looks like it's designed to create them. When you mandate that the bottom 5% are failures, there will always be failures. This is the idiotic system Microsoft used, the one that gave us such brilliant innovations as the ubiquitous Windows phone every teenage student of mine simply must have. The fact that all so-called failing schools contain large numbers of high-needs kids, like mine, is neither here nor there.

And Mulgrew was mistaken when he said receivership did not entail revocation of contract. It appears to be entirely possible.

And because junk science rules New York State, we have to inflict our nonsense on grad schools as well. This is an utter rout. Cuomo, at a nadir of popularity, has managed to get virtually everything he wants.

Thanks to Mike Schirtzer for the portrait of the independent evaluators.

Sometimes people criticize this blog. They say it only presenta one side. They're entirely right. This space is entirely subjective and pretty much at the whim of whoever writes it, generally yours truly. Why don't I present the POV of Michael Mulgrew? I'd argue that's his job, not mine. I don't see him broadcasting my opinions anywhere. I paint what I see, and if you see otherwise, you can do the same.

Mulgrew's point of view, that the new budget agreement represents some sort of victory, that we've pushed back Cuomo, has little or nothing to do with mine. Amazingly, we've managed to move backwards at the behest of a governor at the low point of once massive popularity.  Cuomo wanted more teachers fired and more schools closed, and it's very hard for me to see how his new budget doesn't achieve that.

At the NY Post, things are different. The Post's POV is based on something, but I have no idea what. Reading it, you'd think Mulgrew was all-powerful, laying down rules for the city to follow. This piece says teachers ought to reject Mulgrew because he's turned on us, supporting the new suspension regulations. I agree with the piece that the new regs may make our jobs more difficult, but I don't see that as reason to reject Mulgrew.

Were Mulgrew the omnipotent force described in the Post editorial, we wouldn't have gone six years without a contract, and we wouldn't have foregone the 8% increase most other city workers got between 2008-2010 for 10 years without interest. Teachers with permanent licenses would not have to reregister to renew them. We wouldn't be looking at mandatory failure of 5% of schools statewide, expedited dismissal procedures, a higher dependence on junk science, or any of the other nonsense our leadership failed to stop, let alone acknowledge in a recent email that now appears nothing short of delusional.

The Post argues that teachers have gotten more money for less time in the classroom, as though teachers are dancing in the streets over spending hours at tedious and wasteful meetings. I'd rather be with the kids, and I don't know a single teacher who feels otherwise. Of course, there's no evidence the Post bothered to consult a single teacher before writing this piece.

The Post continues, offering teachers an alternative to Mulgrew's selfish ways. We can work in charter schools, unencumbered by union. In the Post's universe, charters don't unionize because they don't want to pay dues or abide by those darn union rules. Who wants due process? Isn't it better to let Eva Moskowitz fire you outright because you have a bad haircut? Who wants to stand up for special needs kids who aren't served? Isn't it better to ignore the fact they don't get what they need at risk of losing your job?

The Post, evidently, has never heard of people being afraid to unionize. The Post has never heard of people being afraid for their jobs. In Post-land, Americans are happy to work at Walmart and Target for sub-living wages, with crappy or no benefits. In Post-land, teachers love bringing home cell phones to take parent calls on their own time, and there isn't enormous teacher turnover in charters. In my world, student teachers go all out to get jobs in public schools, and only resort to charters as a last resort.

The Post trots out the old canard about pervert teachers being protected by UFT, as though we are out on the streets cheering child abuse. No one wants that, and the Post doesn't bother with clauses in the UFT Contract that mandate immediate removal of anyone involved in inappropriate contact.

The Post plays into the widespread lie that there is some zombie plague of bad teachers that needs to be eradicated. It says it is nearly impossible to fire teachers, and conveniently ignores the new evaluation system, too young to even have been tested. It ignores the exodus of hundreds of ATR teachers as a result of the new contract, as well as new regulations that place those who remain at risk for no good reason.

Worst, it suggests, with no evidence whatsoever, that Cuomo is the best hope for schools. Personally, I have enormous issues with Mike Mulgrew as President of UFT. But I wouldn't resolve them by affiliating with an astroturf front group like E4E, or volunteering a slave to Eva Moskowitz. Like Governor Cuomo, the Post has not the slightest notion what it is to be a working teacher. This happens when you live in a bubble, taking in what you like and ignoring everything else. Post writers ought to spend more time with real working teachers.

So should Mulgrew. If he thinks there's anything good about the state budget, he needs to head for a classroom and talk to working teachers who aren't on the UFT Unity gravy train.

I am proud to be UFT, and I support my brother and sister teachers.  Our union can do way better, but it's still our union. 80, 000 of us together do better than we would one at a time, with bowls in hand, asking Eva Moskowitz, "Please, ma'am, may I have some more?"

But that's exactly the Post's vision for working teachers. It's not good for us, and it's not good for the kids we serve. Who stands up for the kids? Who will fight for them, ALL of them?

UFT teachers will. That's our job, and it's on our minds every moment. There are reasons to reject our leadership. A big one is its abject failure to work against Cuomo during the election. Another is its ridiculous strategy of opposing him only on the budget, and failing to be aggressive on all the issues that came back to haunt us today. Yet another is its miserable inability to perceive what opt-out is or represents, let alone act on it.

I don't think Mulgrew shares the Post's vision of working people striking for more work and less pay. But for much of last night I wondered what sort of happy pills he must have taken before he wrote that outlandish email painting the state budget as a victory.

Hi folks, it's me, your old pal "Punchy" Mike Mulgrew! Don't try and take my Common Core from me! I'll punch out your stinking face and push it in the dirt! But seriously, folks, let's talk turkey. First of all, don't believe anything you read on those blogs. I'll be nice, which is hard for me because I'm an ex-carpenter, a regular blue collar guy who can't help but walk around spouting obscenities for no reason. So I'll just say they're purveyors of myth, rather than call them a bunch of despicable liars.

Anyhoo, the new agreement does not suck. Cuomo wanted probation to take five years, and now it only takes four. And all due process rights remain in place, as long as you don't get rated ineffective twice in a row and need more than 90 days to prove your case, as long as you don't get rated ineffective three years in a row and need more than 30 days to prove your case, and as long as you aren't an ATR who needs more than one day. Sure tenure used to take three years, but you gotta admit four years sucks a full year less than five years. Score another victory for us!

Governor Cuomo demanded more charter schools, and whoopee! He didn't get them as part of the budget agreement! How much does that not suck? Instead, he'll negotiate it later! It would suck if they had done it now. Now, we will talk about it later and no one can say just how much it does or does not suck until then. So, in review, doesn't suck now. Another victory! Plus we've always supported charters, and we've even opened and co-located one, and the part of it that didn't suck is still open. Another feather in our cap.

As for placing schools into receivership, the Governor won't do that. Instead, local chancellors will choose receivers. How bad could it be if the city took over closing schools, or had someone take them over? That's much better than Cuomo doing it, and it sucks way less. Of course it's never happened and we have no idea what it will be like when it does, but it is our considered opinion that it will suck less. After all, what's a few thousand ATRs between friends, and who even knows if that will happen? Clearly the amount of suck cannot be quantified here, so, no suck, no foul.

As for merit pay, Cuomo wanted 20K in merit pay. But that won't happen. In NYC, we have master and model teachers, and the rat squad which goes out and determines whether the burden of proof to fire you is on the DOE or you, but that's not merit pay, just like our last failed schoolwide program wasn't merit pay either. And since merit pay sucks, that isn't merit pay, and Cuomo didn't give us merit pay, this also doesn't suck.

As for funding, Cuomo wanted to give 1.1 billion in increases if we sucked up his sucky programs, which would suck. We went out and demanded that Cuomo pay us the 5.6 billion he owed us from the CFE lawsuit, and even paid valuable lip service to the notion of taking him to court over it. But we got 1.6 billion in aid, which sucks a lot less than 1.1 billion and a bunch of sucky programs. Sure the bloggers will ask why we didn't go for the 5.6 billion, but screw them because they're a bunch of lying bastards and we will never, ever allow them to influence us in our mission to accomplish things that don't suck as much as they could otherwise.

As for evaluation, we have of late been suggesting that the 1-100 measure, the one we had Leo Casey defend passionately on Edwize, sucks, and that we're looking for something new. Of course we don't want 50% of your rating to be based on test scores, because that would suck. Instead we will have multiple measures, which we already have, which suck way less than the 50% Governor Cuomo wants. What will they be? Who knows? And sure you might get observed by strangers from the state, but who can judge your skills better than someone who doesn't know you from a hole in the wall? That doesn't suck, does it?

Like Governor Cuomo, we loved the current law when it came out, but when people started to suggest that it sucked, we listened, and dumped NYSUT President Richard Iannuzzi, contending that he sucked for passing the law in the first place. And believe you me, if there are any further problems, we will step up and declare Karen Magee sucks and dump her too. We are not afraid to dispense blame for things that suck. Just bear in mind that nothing is ever our fault, and that every change is a victory in that it could have sucked even more without our valuable input.

So thank you for everything you've done. In retrospect, it sucked that we scheduled the rally for March 28th coinciding with the budget agreement. Perhaps it would have been smarter to do it a week earlier when we might have gotten massive press coverage and actually influenced someone. Believe me, I will blame someone for that, maybe the bloggers, maybe Karen Magee, but someone will pay. And maybe we should have actually endorsed someone against Cuomo when he was running for governor, rather than sitting on our hands and letting Zephyr Teachout lose twice. However, we have already decided to blame NYSUT for not making that decision, so again, it's not our fault and it doesn't suck. And those bastard bloggers won't mention this, but under my leadership we haven't had a catastrophic natural disaster in over two years.

So, in conclusion, things suck much less than they could suck, we've reduced suckiness to a bare minimum, anything that does suck is not our fault, a thousand points of light, and God bless the United Federation of Teachers.

There is a strange paradox to high-stakes standardized testing.  Proctors of the exam are under a gag order (legally challenged) not to discuss the contents.  The social media of students is monitored to make sure they do not divulge any questions.

Fifty-percent of the exams are released, but the other fifty percent remains top secret.  One would like to know "how the other half lives"!  Some questions are invalidated under the cover of darkness.  Then, students, teachers and schools are evaluated high-stakes style based upon these sometimes flawed exams, the contents of which must supposedly remain largely shrouded in secrecy.  Oh, the bitter irony of it all!

I have never met a standardized test for which students could not successfully prep  or be prepped based on prior questions.  Here, I could quote a long list of exams I have passed along  the road of life:  NYS Regents tests, SATs, GREs, AP tests and even the written portion of the NYS driver's test.  On top of being forbidden from knowing the complete contents of the Common-Core tests, NYS passed a law limiting test prep in district schools, but not in charters.  If it wasn't true, it would be too funny!

It is ironic that administrators, teachers and students are forbidden to know the full contents of exams that largely determine their fates in life.  It is as if one is forbidden in a court of law from knowing the charges against one.  If one cannot know the test questions, "justice," indeed, will be blind, but only in the worst way!

I don’t suppose it was any kind of surprise that the MORE-sponsored anti-testing resolution died on the floor of the DA last Wednesday. I really admire their tenacity for placing this before the DA after the “I refuse” resolution was killed on technical grounds. I’m not sure whether or not it’s a good use of their time.

For one thing, once Leroy Barr, or pretty much anyone in leadership gets up and speaks against it, everyone in UFT Unity Caucus knows how their votes are supposed to go. After all, once you take an oath to support Unity Caucus in public, that’s pretty much what you have to do. This is a time-honored tradition, and it dates back to the days when Al Shanker bounced Unity members for opposing the Vietnam War. Everyone in Unity Caucus understands bloc voting, and within the DA, everyone outside of Unity Caucus understands there’s absolutely nothing that happens without leadership’s OK. I'd argue most teachers have not a clue or care what goes on, and that this is a fundamental flaw of our union.

Still, it’s good to see someone as intelligent and thoughtful as Lauren Cohen speaking truth to the Flock. At least this time they didn’t boo her en masse, as they did when she dared mention the loyalty oath. It was inspiring to hear common sense, pro-teacher rhetoric in between all the talk about how we could become administrators without becoming administrators, and about how we couldn’t possibly endorse something strongly endorsing a growing New York movement.

I’m becoming increasingly skeptical of Mulgrew’s folksy talk about how he was a carpenter, and about how he can’t use good language to talk about certain people. Where was all this good old blue collar hostility when Andrew Cuomo was running for governor? Didn’t the mighty UFT cede its authority to Revive NYSUT, which displayed its wrath against Cuomo by doing nothing whatsoever?

There were several other low points for me, though I honestly could not have anticipated them. After all, failing to substantively oppose nonsensical testing that will hurt public school children, parents and teachers is fundamentally problematic. In my opinion, it shows the very same lack of foresight leadership displayed when they failed to oppose Cuomo term two, and Bloomberg terms two and three.

Beyond that, as UFT Chapter Leader Mary Ahern pointed out in the comments. UFT failed to bring up its own watered-down testing resolution. It won’t get another chance to do even that until April, by which time who knows what nonsense the legislature will have enabled?

Finally, I was more or less startled by an exchange following leadership’s rather innocuous attempt to celebrate the union’s birthday. A delegate got up and started talking about racism, communism, and UFT history. I didn’t completely follow what he was talking about. Then Leroy Barr got up and started shouting about how he was delighted to oppose the delegate, and how dare the delegate denigrate the founders who fought for the right for him to speak there?

It was kind of amazing, and completely uncalled for. Here we are, under attack from Cuomo, under attack in the press, many of us working under less than optimal conditions, and if we dare speak our minds at the delegate assembly, we are attacked by our own leadership. Actually, it’s the job of leadership to represent us. I often get the impression they think it ought to be the other way around.

I was very pleased when Yelena Siwinski got up and said it was inappropriate and disrespectful to insult someone for introducing an amendment. It certainly is. But when you’ve got 800 acolytes who will vote a ham sandwich for President if you ask them to, that’s what you get.

Mulgrew thanks DA for what we’ve accomplished. Says we’ve killed Cuomo’s rating in 2 months, while it took us two years to hit Bloomberg.

Video about teacher leader positions comes on. Plays “Feels so Good,” by Chuck Mangione in background. Narrator speaks very fast. Tough to focus on what he’s selling. Various teachers explain why they’ve taken these jobs. Chuck Mangione plays again as teachers explain how wonderful this program is. One teacher speaks of walls between classrooms falling down, and it’s hard for me to imagine it isn’t literal. Narrator blabbers again as Mangione music rises to crescendo and video mercifully ends.

Mulgrew speaks of a college he visited, which he won’t name, ridicules professors for saying Obama plans failed, that poverty affects education, that teachers should be involved, and says he told them we didn’t want their help and could do things ourselves. Apparently the solution is improving things involves keeping higher ed. teachers away from us.

Amy Arundell introduces chapter leaders and model and master teachers. Mulgrew tells them they are master and model teachers and should talk about what they do.  Master and model teachers oblige. Students of one master teacher, who appears to have a sense of humor, refer to themselves as “master students.”  Chapter leader says she shifted the negative mindset of teachers by calling model teachers “public learners” so as to avoid stigma.

Mulgrew says it’s important that we’re figuring things out with model and master teachers, says we can figure things out while people outside cannot.

Mulgrew praises city’s recognition of Muslim holidays. Says first day meeting will mostly be used to set up classroom.

Mulgrew says Eva taking Lobby Day for Eva day was a mistake. Says difference between her and us is we would never drag students on buses mid-winter to make political point. Says he got best reports ever from legislators this year, and that they know the fight is in Albany this year rather than in NYC. Says he lobbied with teachers from PROSE schools. Says we will move our school system and demanded that if legislators wouldn’t help they should get out of the way.

Mulgrew, who is on neither Facebook nor Twitter, speaks of the millions of hits UFT has received on Facebook recently. Mulgrew says we like to work in difficult situations. Says message we get from Albany is that we should avoid teaching needy kids, that we will fight it. Thanks those who went to Lobby Day. Says he said many bad words about Cuomo and doesn’t know how to use good words. Blames it on years of being a carpenter.

Says legislators all wonder why Cuomo won’t pay the 2.5 billion he owes us. Praises us for being on social media.

Says in first such 13% case, arbitrator ruled for chapter leader who got bad rating for doing her job. Crowd applauds.  Says nothing of 87% who don't get benefit of arbitrators. Mulgrew says that principal needs to go.

Mulgrew says kids can still be suspended. Says only real change is schools should first and foremost focus on culture that says school is managed well. Says Bloomberg overdid it and would place 4 lawyers in a room with a kid who cursed at someone.

Says networks will be gone June 30th, to applause. Says this is last big piece of reorganization, but chancellor has been reorganizing throughout.

Mulgrew praises Chuy Garcia in Chicago, who Rahm outspent 12 to 1. Says UFT raised money for fundraiser last Monday. Praises retirees who have helped in Chicago.

Mulgrew describes week of March 12th, shows video he says has gone viral, discussing things that happened one day in classrooms. Video describes human contact that cannot be measured by test scores. Says children will suffer from reformy nonsense, and that education is not a business.

Mulgrew says we are fighting Cuomo, that he hits us and we hit back. Says Cuomo is having a bad week and book is coming out about him. Says governor came out saying he wouldn’t compromise but it hasn’t worked out for him as he is fought across state. Approval rating on ed. gone from 60s to 23%. Calls Cuomo a liar.

Mulgrew speaks of Saturday rally. Says NYSUT will bus people from Buffalo. Says we did it on a Saturday in NYC on purpose, that it doesn’t matter whether or not budget is done because fight won’t end this year. Praises Heastie. Says GOP leader will not vote on budget that ties funding to APPR, that we must make our voices heard and be out in force on Saturday. Says governor is dug in on his positions, but that parents do not want increased use of tests.

Mulgrew wants Saturday to be celebration of all the work we’ve done with all of our partners. Says there will be bands playing, media coverage, but we will send message we will not allow our schools to be destroyed. Asks us all to come. Ends report.

Leroy Barr says 1,000 people came to para luncheon. Speaks of high school awards, 5K run. Says March 16th was UFT’s birthday. Ends report.

Mulgrew, discussing consultation committee decorum in response to a question, speaks of how collaboration is defined by action, not words. Piques my interest.

Mulgrew says there must be more flexibility in parent engagement. Says time is very valuable and we don’t want to waste it. Asks if anyone wants to go back to 37.5 minutes and crowd says no. Says teachers tell him PD is OK but they really like Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.

Question—what is matrix model for evaluation? Mulgrew says it’s a box graph. Says UFT opposed 100 point system. Says “we” introduced box graph now known as the matrix. Says it will solve anomalies in 100 point system. Issue is what goes into score in terms of student achievement. Mulgrew says we use a growth model, that we’re comfortable with it, but that state wants a value-added model. Criticizes system he helped pass and heralded as wonderful a few years ago, says we prefer box graph, which is much simpler. Says school districts where all teachers were rated with very good or very bad ratings are result of 100 point system.

Motion—for this months agenda—Lauren Cohen, wearing MORE shirt, springs from her seat and proposes resolution for this month opposing standardized testing, prominently labeled from MORE caucus of UFT.  Mulgrew says she can present, and it will take 2/3 motion to place on agenda.

Editorial comment—I love it.  This is a really strong resolution supporting opt-out and opposing high-stakes testing, Common Core based testing until it has been tested. Sparse applause.

Lauren reads resolution.

James Vasquez questions whether resolution is appropriate, as there is similar one on agenda. Mulgrew says it can be voted on.

Mulgrew says motion fails. I am not persuaded. Motion that people stand for and against resolution and UFT Unity kills it conclusively

Jonathan Halabi calls for support of fast food worker strike. Mulgrew says he can’t speak to it. Motion is placed on this month’s agenda.

Motion for next month’s agenda—that UFT endorse Progressive labor party’s Mayday march. Leroy Barr opposes. Says we support worker and immigrant rights, but suggests we cannot combine different issues.  Resolution voted down.

Fast food reso moved up. Halabi speaks of fast food worker campaign. Resolution carries.

Resolution to honor 55th anniversary of union, one week after anniversary. Member proposes amendments. Leroy Barr speaks against. Passionately speaks of founders who gave him benefits, right to speak out. We are keepers of the flame, and apparently pride entails criticizing the very voice he claims our founders enabled.

Yelena Siwinski raises point of order, states it is inappropriate and disrespectful to insult the speaker who offered an amendment. Mulgrew says it isn't a point of order.

Motion to celebrate anniversary passes.

Motion to extend 15 minutes so we can discuss testing. Motion fails. Mulgrew leads singing of happy birthday to UFT.

My message to Cuomo is shaped by what a colleague, who wishes to remain anonymous, casually said to me one day. "Is Cuomo the biggest deadbeat dad in the state?" It made a lot of sense to me. I wrote a piece about it and tried to place it beyond this blog, but a lot of potential publishers were offended by it. Personally, I'm offended this man, who blocks aid for our kids in favor of sending it to his contributors, musters the audacity to label himself a student lobbyist.

Do you use any of the new CCSS textbooks?  We had a sample copy in our workroom.  Due to factors of cost, most of our texts appear to be created ten-years ago.

The CCSS texts don't seem significantly different from the older texts.  History hasn't changed much.  Both books have questions for critical thinking at the end of each section.  It doesn't seem to me that there is any great difference in the level of the questions.  Perhaps, it's just me.

A CCSS question page.  Notice the branding next to the word "REVIEW"

A pre-Core question page

I don't have the official formula to measure the lexile level (and if I did, I wouldn't use it), but compare two pages with similar content, a discussion of cuneiform.  Although the books may differ slightly in the information provided to the reader, I do not recognize one as superior to the other.  Both texts even discuss Gilgamesh.

In my classroom, at some point, we look at cuneiform symbols.  We compare them to the symbols of other early writing systems.  We read a primary source on a child's day at school in Sumer and a  summarized version of Gilgamesh.  It may seem like I have always been Common-Core aligned.  No, it's just good teaching.  No branding necessary.  Keep your Pearson tests with cut scores set just so.

A CCSS-Aligned Page on Cunieform

A pre-Core book on Cuneiform

A pre-Core book on Sumer

Where the two books seem the most different is in their branding.  Notice so many of the pages of the new text contain the CCSS emblem, the educational equivalent of  FDA- or Gates-approved.

CCSS label appears next to the "HELP DESK" above.  Help!

My hope is the Core can be killed before the City has to purchase loads of these bogus texts, touting college and career readiness above and beyond the days of old.  It is so unpopular in my circles, the sooner CCSS becomes obsolete, the better.  Perhaps, in the case of the textbooks, given the influence of business upon education, it is just another case of planned obsolescence.

Looks like the geniuses at NYSED have done it again. Even after they field test the questions, they still don't work, so they get to erase them. These, of course, are the tests written by Pearson, which are much better than tests you or I could write. After all, the folks at Pearson have never met any of your students, don't know them from a hole in the wall, and are therefore the only people on earth who are qualified to judge them, or you, or whether your schools stay open.

One of the coolest things about the state tests is that they set the cut scores after they grade them. So if John King says 70% of our kids are gonna fail, well, that's just the way it is. If they say you need to answer 50 questions to pass, and too many kids do it, they can say they need 55. Or if not enough kids pass, they can say they need 45, and so on. Nice work if you can get it, and when you can toss out any questions that skew your results the wrong way, your success is fairly assured.

Here's the thing--that's exactly why head ed. Merryl Tisch decided we couldn't grade our students' Regents exams. Some teachers, horror of horrors, were finding kids who scored 64, and finding ways to bump the scores up to 65. What an awful thing to do, when the kid who scored 64 could simply spend another year studying whatever it was he or she missed by one point. Spending an entire year agonizing over one stinking point builds grit, or rigor, or whatever the hell it is that we're supposed to want for our kids.

Now NY State doesn't go scrimping around for one stinking point. NY State determines what results it wants, and manipulates the scores so they prove whatever. Want all the kids to pass so you look like geniuses? Want all the kids to fail so you can give more schools to Moskowitz? Want to have a sudden improvement? Want a crisis? You can get anything you want in Merryl Tisch's restaurant.

Now, since NYSED blatantly twists the scores to do whatever, they kind of assume we will too. I mean, have you known people who lie and cheat and say any damn thing to suit their purposes? In my experience, people like that tend to suspect the worst of others. They're very free with accusations, usually angry ones, that other people behave as they do. So don't take it personally if NYSED doesn't trust you.

They don't trust anyone, since they can't trust themselves. Because they are a bunch of lying manipulative weasels, they assume we are too. The only bad thing is how many people believe it.

We're gonna have to do something about that.

-->

In these times, teachers are accustomed to being punching bags for every tinhorn politician that wants a dollar from DFER. But all over the state parents are supporting the people whose job it is to support their children. Here, our PTA President has encouraging words for us. The only way we win a battle against a demagogue like Cuomo is by working together.