Scenario—We have lost the Friedrichs case at SCOTUS and union dues are now optional. Gates-funded E4E seizes the opportunity and reaches out to rank and file.

Are you still paying $1300 a year for dues to the United Federation of Teachers? Do you know where that money goes?

A few years ago, Mayor Michael Bloomberg wanted to give highly effective teachers $25,000 a year in bonus pay. That’s twenty-five thousand dollars. But your union blocked that money. In fact,  you paid $1300 that year to ruin your chances of getting it. Even if you got it one year out of the next ten, you’d have double the money you do now by paying the union.

It was your union that repeatedly stood in the mayor’s way. Not only that, but Mayor Bloomberg believed in good teachers so much, he was willing to halve the teaching force and pay the best teachers double. Sure there would have been higher class sizes, but aren’t truly good teachers, like you, up for a challenge?

But that’s not all your union has done. The UFT has fought charter schools tooth and nail. Charters are not bound by union contract, and have no maximum pay range. They can pay teachers as much as they like, and there have been charters that paid all teachers, regardless of experience, $25,000 more than maximum pay for only senior teachers. What are you getting for your $1300? A third of that?

Furthermore, your union has consistently thwarted opportunities for further teacher employment. Governor Cuomo has repeatedly tried to enact a tax credit for private schools. You’ve probably heard about many Catholic schools closing in our area. The union fought this, and Catholic schools continue to close. Thus, fewer teachers get jobs. You may not get a job in a Catholic school as a result of your union’s policies.

The union is all about protecting the worst teachers, and letting teachers like you suffer the consequences. If you are an excellent teacher, you don’t need to stand with a union. You will be recognized by your bosses and rewarded. In fact, if your boss were not limited by a union contract, you wouldn’t be either. You could get bonuses for your excellence and teachers like you could finally be paid what you are worth, regardless of how much that may be.

Are you going to continue to pay $1300 a year to support the UFT’s agenda of less work, fewer opportunities, and lower pay? Or are you going to keep that money and support our movement toward schools in which excellence is recognized and rewarded? You can join Educators4Excellence for free, and tell your colleagues about the benefits of going independent.

The choice is yours. And so is the money. As long as the union is still around, it will continue to provide whatever services it does, whether you pay or not. But if you join us. you will eventually get to negotiate services you need for yourself. Excellent teachers have nothing to fear from such a system.

So here’s what we want to know. Are you excellent, or are you just a hanger-on? Are you ready to take a bold step, or are you just looking for same old, same old? Are you in this job for yourself, or do you want excellence for your students?

If you are the best, stand with us. Unions are so twentieth century. If you are excellent, everyone will know it. Keep the $1300, every year, and dare to make a lot more than that over the course of your career.

I read a lot these days, mostly online, so there is a lot of competition for that particular honor. There's Donald Trump, to give just one example.  It's tough to outdo the Donald, as he is a preposterous figure, albeit expert in self-promotion. Personally, I think we need a different standard for people who run education, and are therefore assumed to have educational expertise.

Readers of this blog know well the NYC DOE can always find a place to shine, and it did so this week in a PowerPoint presentation explaining the new state requirements. You will need to use DOE cred to sign in, and I apologize in advance to readers without it. In its never-ending goal to help kids who need it most, NY State has decided to cut direct ESL instruction to newcomers.

Instead, it will devote time to integrated courses, to be either co-taught by ESL teachers and certified subject area teachers, or by subject area teachers with a 12-credit ESL extension. The beauty of this, for administrators who don't give a crap whether kids learn anything, is they can now hire one teacher where they used to need two. They can then cut staff and use the money for fact-finding missions to Oahu, or whatever it is their particular buildings need.

A problem, though, is that they've taken away direct instruction in ESL and substituted pretty much nothing. That is to say, kids who take social studies, math, English and science will still do so, but in one of those classes there will either be a qualified ESL teacher or someone who took some magic summer courses, likely as not from NYSUT. This begs a few questions.

1. How will having a more qualified subject teacher, or teachers, mitigate the fact that the time, test and curriculum for the course is exactly the same?

2. How will having less direct instruction in ESL help any English Language Learners?

3. Why is NYSUT taking any part, direct or otherwise, in a program which will most certainly cause working ESL teachers to lose jobs?

I haven't got any answers, and if you do, I'm all ears. But I led you on with the headline, so let me now share the stupidest thing I've read all week. It's from the PowerPoint. This, according to the geniuses at the DOE, is why we offer direct ESL instruction:

Standalone ESL is instruction to develop English language skills so that students can succeed in core content courses.

I do not teach kids English for that reason. I teach kids English because it is a fundamental need for them in every aspect of their lives, and if there are exceptions they are few and far between.  If it helps them succeed in core content courses, which I’m certain it does, that’s fine. But there’s something really wrong with having people who think like that make rules for kids.

The assumption that core content courses, or any courses for that matter, are the purpose of educating children in English, or indeed any discipline, is so blatantly ignorant that it has me at a rare loss for words. It is our job to prepare children for life, which is something much broader than "college ready." We are role models, not Lucy on the chocolate-wrapping assembly line.

I question the lucidity of any mind that could conceive the goal of learning English is to succeed in core content courses. That's like saying the goal of learning to walk is so students can get to the bus stop more quickly. It's like saying the goal of breathing is to be able to answer higher order questions as set out in the Danielson Framework.

It's so stupid I could probably go on for quite a while, but I will spare you. And saying "this week" is nothing if not an understatement.

Where do they find these people and why on earth are they given the power to make decisions for children about whom they clearly know less than nothing?

Chalkbeat NY nee Gotham Schools looks is looking for happy colocation stories. I saw this in an email, and later on a tweet.

Do you have examples of schools in the same building that are working well together? We want to hear from you — whether it’s sharing resources, having joint professional development sessions for teachers, or sending out a building-wide newsletter.

I responded to the tweet and asked why they were only looking for one side of the story, but received no response.

It seems to me that the only reason there are colocations is because Bloomberg decided public schools were awful, and decided that Bill Gates' notion of small schools was the way to go. Gates has since dropped this idea, but in New York we are the first to adopt bad ideas and the last to drop them, so it lives on here. Of course these schools may be small public schools or charter schools. Maybe Eva Moskowitz has moved in, and of course Chalkbeat needs to tell the world why that's a great thing.

But why? Isn't it the job of journalists to report what actually happens? Why wouldn't they just ask what life is like in schools that share space? If it is indeed wonderful, surely people will say so. And if there are flaws, if Moskowitz is not precisely a good neighbor, people can say that too.

But that's not what Chalkbeat NY is looking for. Chalkbeat NY wants the success stories, and they are evidently so hard to find that it must advertise to find them. If that's the case, why are these stories important? There's always an exception to prove the rule. But if that's all you intend to feature, you are simply not projecting anything resembling objective reality.

Now lots of us note that Chalkbeat takes Gates money, that it features E4E as though they actually represented teachers, that it's all over everything charter, and that voices that reflect what really happens in public school are not given space over there. But the answer we get from them, invariably, is that they are not biased. Rather, they claim to be looking at everything objectively.

Why, then, do they actively solicit one side of a story, a side so difficult to locate that they must advertise publicly for it?

I don't read Chalkbeat as much as I used to since their ponderous redesign. I can't really tell which stories are new and they no longer feature comments on their front page. I actually thought the interaction with readers was a great feature, even if their choice of what to report on leaned heavily toward the reformy. They also dropped their nightcap, which featured voices other than those in MSM. But while its format is total drek, it doesn't appear to have bothered to make its reporting any more objective.

Personally, I have no problem with points of view. That's what this blog is all about. I do have a problem when people claim to be objective, and plainly are not. Unfortunately, that's exactly what I see over at Chalkbeat.

How does a top-down, undemocratic, loyalty-oath driven UFT survive an unfavorable decision in Fredrichs v. California? Who is gonna pay $1300 a year to a union that has a fundamental aversion to essential democracy? If leadership can't inspire 20% of working members to vote in union elections, how the hell are they gonna get the majority to pay voluntarily?

The last time UFT lost dues checkoff was after a strike in 1975. It took until 1982 to resolve, and UFT lost 20% of its revenue. I hear that some UFT employees actually had to leave offices and go back to work in classrooms. Oh, the horror!

The thing is, on the heels of a strike, people saw things differently. Members had actually walked out en masse to support union. Members were united by a common cause. Members knew they were UFT, and that they had stood up for something. I'm not at all sure members know that anymore.

Times have changed. For example, I doubt UFT President Michael Mulgrew thought he'd need to sell union to every working member when he got up and said he'd punch Common Core opponents in the face and push their faces in the dirt. You have to wonder whether he's regretting having shown no punchiness whatsoever when we went years without a contract. You have to wonder if he's regretting having helped negotiate junk science evaluation, or thanking the Heavy Hearts Assembly for having passed an even worse version of it.

You have to wonder about a leader whose vision for fighting back entails mounting a Twitter campaign in which he himself does not participate. You have to wonder about a leader who refuses to take on the high-stakes testing noose around our necks because of the claim civil rights groups support it. (If they do, they're wrong and it's our job to let them know why.)  The opt-out movement is more important than our leaders realize, and merits more than lip service. The SCOTUS case is even more important, and should worse come to worst, we'll need someone who can envision something more than a Twitter campaign he himself can't be bothered with.

Here is a golden opportunity for leadership to embrace democracy rather than absolute control over everything no matter what. Here is a chance for them to utilize the voices of those who oppose VAM, mayoral control, school closings, charter schools, high-stakes testing, privatization, and the entire more-work-for-less-pay thrust of the hedge-funders and billionaires who've been setting the agenda of American education.

In short, here's a chance for them to preclude disaster, at least to some extent. They can say yes, we hear you. They can say yes, we will represent you and we will allow you a voice in the UFT. They can say yes, we will not only collect dues for NYSUT and AFT, but also we will give you a voice and a vote, even if it means disappointing some of our reliable rubber stamps.

I advise you to sit while you wait for that. 

NYSUT has published a fact sheet on the Cuomo/ Heavy Hearts revision of state APPR. It is less than encouraging, to say the least. The thing that really stands out, the thing I hadn't heard at all before, is this--




This is something new. No more UFT Rat Squad, because it's now a LOSE-LOSE. No matter what happens, it's on you to prove you are not incompetent. (Sorry, all you UFT members who took money to rat out your colleagues. Doubtless other opportunities will present themselves. Maybe you can be peer observers.) So if the Boy Wonder Supervisor determines it's time to dump you, you get classes calculated to fail the junk science portion, you get bad writeups, the Boy Wonder sees things that didn't happen, fails to see things that did, and two years later you have to prove he's lying, likely with no evidence whatsoever.

Another interesting development is the Teacher Improvement Plan (TIP). While the UFT agreement states that it should be collaborative, because perhaps you as a teacher have some inkling as to where and how you can improve, the Cuomo/ Heavy Hearts plan does away with that entirely. If the Boy Wonder states you have to do 20 pull ups every lunch period to attain Nirvana, that's pretty much what you have to do.

There is an appeals process, but I'm not clear it will help UFT members who have insane supervisors. There are specific grounds for appeal, but unless you've actually videotaped lessons it won't help teachers with supervisors who make stuff up or selectively rate things.

NYSUT plans to appeal the TIP requirement, and to try to attain more realistic scoring bands. What I don't see is any objection to burden of proof on 3020a or general objection to junk science. Naturally I'm shocked, since I watched all the Revive/ Unity candidates, none of whom lifted a finger to stop the APPR law, relentlessly criticize Richard Iannuzzi for having negotiated it. Oddly, none criticized Mulgrew, who was there at the side.

Since Mulgrew praised the Heavy Hearts for having negotiated this abomination, he owns it. And so does his subsidiary, Revive NYSUT/ Unity.

It is our job to inspire children. How we do that with the Sword of Danielson hanging over our heads is a mystery, to say the least. It's unconscionable that our leader, Mike Mulgrew, expressed support for this abomination. How on earth does he get all punchy over Common Core, used to label us as failures, and not raise fist one over this?

It's good to see the possibility this awful system will be delayed for one more year. As someone who teaches beginning ELLs who will certainly bomb on tests, particularly tests like the NYSESLAT that fail even to measure what I teach, I see it as a one year reprieve from being fired for the crime of doing my job. This system will cause teachers to teach to the test as a fundamental survival technique. As per Campbell's Law, as per history, it will inspire cheating.

As per common sense, it will do nothing to address the factors that contribute to low test scores, which are exclusively economic. But with New York State manipulating test scores to prove whatever they wish proven, along with Governor Cuomo's well-documented desire to fire more unionized teachers, things are looking particularly dismal for us this week.

NYC Educator,

OK, it's not those Supremes, but not only do I like them better, but they also look better than the current bunch. Nonetheless, the national Supremes are looking at a case that aims to hobble union. How many of the over 80% of working UFT members who don't vote in elections will pony up a thousand bucks a year if they don't have to?

Not only that, but how many of the 17 or 18% of working members who vote will continue to pay?  Last week I wrote about an email I got that blamed the union's failure to work against Cuomo on too few people wanting to be delegates and listen to the blather that passes for a forum over at 52 Broadway.

This week I got a different message from the email. Chapter leaders should look at their agency fee payers and make sure they sign up as union members. I'm not precisely sure how that would change things, but since he brought it up, I do that each and every year. The people in my building who are fee payers are that way because no matter how many times they sign up, and I've actually watched some of them do it online, they never quite get registered. I know of precisely no one who's a fee-payer on principle.

The message went on to remind chapter leaders that they have a personal incentive to sign these people--an extra five bucks a year in the CL stipend per member who signs. Since I'm at max, I wouldn't get that big five bucks. But if five bucks were the sort of thing that motivated me, imagine what I'd do if I could save a thousand bucks by not paying my union negotiators for the frankly abysmal job they do. I wouldn't have to pay Punchy Mike to tell me the cupboard was bare when there were billions of dollars in de Blasio's sofa cushions. I wouldn't need to actually contribute to the salary of the man who turns off the microphone of truth-teller James Eterno. I wouldn't need to kick in for 750 rubber stamps to travel all over the country to applaud when Mulgrew threatens to punch us in the face. (Right now, they're at the NEA Convention in Orlando, doing whatever the hell it is they are told to do.)

Tempting, ain't it?

The thing is, those of us who oppose the lack of democracy in UFT are fervent believers in union. I'd wager a lot of folks on the gravy train don't have convictions nearly so strong, if at all. I've known chapter leaders who slept through meetings they ran. Who knows what the hell they did at meetings where they were ostensibly representing others?

This is some serious shit, and in Wisconsin, it pretty much left union dead in its tracks. Maybe it's time for something more than a Twitter campaign. Maybe the next time Punchy Mike calls for a Twitter campaign he ought to, you know, join Twitter himself. Doubtless I'm just some wild-eyed radical with loony ideas about leading by example.

But if the union is seriously thinking about, say, surviving, it better come up with something more than paying the chapter leader five bucks. (And no, I'm not suggesting they pay ten bucks.)

We need a membership that is intrinsically motivated, not just a bunch of people who will say any damn thing for a meal and a free trip to Schenectady. 

What is progress? Is progress when we get to speak freely about the abysmal quality of state tests? If so, we haven't precisely made any. Apparently, teachers are now free to discuss the contents of tests after they are made public. The problem, of course, is that pretty much everyone is free to discuss pretty much anything that is public. So what have we gained?

“We’ve loosened the gag but not untied it completely,” said Karen E. Magee, president of the New York State United Teachers union. “But it is certainly progress.”

All due respect, I have no idea why. Ms. Magee, like many union leaders, sees something positive here. It's actually ridiculous to call this progress.

Another test-security rule that Ms. Phillips and others have complained about is one that says teachers who proctor the exams cannot read them. That rule remains in place.

You're not even allowed to read the exams. So if some hapless kid has a question, you say, "Sorry, kid, but state law prohibits me from looking at your paper." How idiotic is that?

I wonder whether it's part of Magee's job description to keep that sunny outlook and find good in everything. Our local union President, Michael Mulgrew, does much the same. In fact, an email I received from Magee seems very much to echo his talking points.

Months of tireless activism by NYSUT's mobilized leaders and members, in unity with parents and our coalition partners, convinced the Legislature this week to reject a toxic, test-and-punish agenda and begin to turn the tide on over-testing!

We beat back the education tax credit that would have been a giveaway to rich supporters of private schools, stopped the push to make the tax cap permanent, and made progress on testing and transparency. This good news underscores the momentum our solidarity continues to build in advancing NYSUT's agenda -- positioning us well for the challenges that remain.

But I'm not feeling the joy. Not only have we made zero progress on the test thing, but also we've gone backward on evaluation. Our strategy to beat that back, if indeed you could call it one, was to ignore the evaluation issue utterly and focus on budget. The tactic, as put forth by UFT President Michael Mulgrew, was to get on Twitter and talk about what #AllKidsNeed, and to #InviteCuomo to our classrooms.

Now there's nothing wrong with that. I participated. (Mulgrew did not.) But the thing that bothers most of the teachers with whom I speak is, in fact, the evaluation system. No one likes it. Everyone is on edge. And while we can focus on what we did not lose, yet, it is not yet time to declare victory and have a party.

We're looking at a new system designed specifically because not enough teachers were being fired under the current one. That is the only reason this system came into being. Mulgrew can point to the matrix and claim tests don't count for 50% of teacher ratings. Maybe they count for 30%. Maybe they count for 49%. Or maybe he's wrong, because there are only two axes, and one of them is testing.

But does that even matter when we're in a system expressly designed to fire more teachers? If this system doesn't fire enough teachers, are we going to get a system that tries to even more teachers? Will that merit a thank you as well?

Mulgrew thanked the Heavy Hearts for voting for this system. If everything we do is wonderful, if we're in the best of all possible worlds, if whatever happens is progress, how do we know when something goes wrong? How do we know when leadership is acting in our interests?

In fact, if we rely on leadership to keep us informed, how do we know anything at all?

There's a new thing in town. Apparently, though test scores are to count up to 50% of your rating, you aren't supposed to use them too much when rating your students. You need to constantly keep your eye on them, and constantly ask them whether they understand or not. You could, for example ask them to raise their right hands if they understand, or their left if they do not. Or you could give them red and green cards. Have them hold up green if they understand, and red if they don't.

This is an odd system, if you ask me. I use the old-fashioned method of constantly asking questions and seeing who can and cannot answer. I am also constantly walking around to see who's on task, who isn't, who's doing it right, and who isn't. But this isn't acceptable anymore, apparently. Rather, I am to rely on the word of a bunch of teenagers for whether or not they understand. Naturally, since this system assumes teenagers to be perfectly secure in themselves at all times, they will never, ever have issues admitting in front of all their peers that they don't understand what's going on.

This is odd, because I learned early on that the question, "Do you understand?" is totally useless. If I depend on kids to tell me whether they understand, I won't find out whether or not they're telling me the truth until I actually give a test and check the results. Because guess what? A lot of people who don't know what's going on simply will not admit it, and that applies to already insecure teenagers as much as anyone. In fact, when is the last time you heard a mea culpa from your principal? When's the last time you got one from your union leader?

I mean, if your supervisor insists you spend class time with kids raising cards, you could always ask them to just raise the green ones to each and every question, and then you will look like a genius. But that's not what's bothering me here. If it is good practice to constantly assess rather than wait until test time, why do we have a system to evaluate professionals that is exactly opposite?

Right now, in NYC, the MOTP portion of your rating is based upon as few as 4 snapshot observations, a single hour of the many you put in throughout the year. Some must be off the cuff, since the system assumes you sit around and read the paper at the desk all year until the supervisor comes in. Then, of course, you give a highly effective textbook lesson, because you can turn on the good stuff whenever you feel like it. I'd argue that, for better or worse, we do all we can all the time, but that's not the point either.

The point is, particularly if you're struggling, particularly if you need help, it's the supervisor's job to provide assistance. If you are not getting a decent rating, it's unconscionable if the supervisor only walked in four times and told you you sucked. It's particularly unconscionable if said supervisor is one who subscribes to the perpetual assessment theory and imposes it on his underlings. Leaders practice what they preach.

I'd argue that formative observations, those that don't count, are a waste of time if a teacher is doing well. In fact, for a teacher doing well, the required four observations are probably a whole lot more than enough. But if the supervisor, the one who fervently believes in formative assessment, can't be bothered to practice it for those he's charged with assessing, he's a hypocrite of the first order, and ought to find a job more suited to his particular talents.

I'm thinking the line at Wendy's, but I'm open to suggestions.

In our continuing coverage of the UFT Presidential campaign, NYC Educator is pleased to keep you apprised of all the important candidates. In alphabetical order:

Emmie--Emmie's campaign is managed by MORE member Lauren Cohen. As you can see, she is already wearing a MORE button. Emmie presumes herself to be the nominee, and organized a play date, attended by most candidates, in which she proposed a unified slate. However, after extensive questioning, both Julio and Peppi left believing that Emmi would only participate in a slate in which she were the presidential candidate. Neither Julio nor Peppi, in the end, committed to endorsing Emmie. However, all parties deemed her the best dressed of all the candidates.

If elected, Emmie promises to end the scourge of water fountains that are too high for the vertically challenged to drink from, and promises to lobby for water bowls at regular intervals in school buildings.




Julio--Julio is an independent, and refuses to align himself with any one caucus at this time.  Julio attended the doggie play date organized by Emmie, but declined to endorse her, claiming her presentation was unpersuasive. While admiring her outfit, Julio felt it was inappropriate for campaign season. Julio prefers a more sporty and natural look, and feels wearing a heavy shirt will get in the way of his job performance. Julio says this is particularly true in the summer, when it's hot, and says it would be extremely "rough" to meet all the job requirements if he were dressed like Emmie.

Julio carries the much-coveted NYC Educator endorsement. Both Emmie and Peppi object to this, claiming the endorsement was issued before they were fully vetted. Peppi was particularly upset, accusing Julio of undue influence, and even residing at the blogger's home. Peppi characterized this as not only prejudicial, but also extremely "rough." While Emmie withheld comment on this accusation, Julio implied Peppi was getting personal and said there was no need for bringing the campaign into the gutter. Julio is the youngest of the candidates and suggests his youth will enable him to have the vision the union needs to move forward. Julio's ticket is filling out quickly, and he has endorsed Bernice and Penny Lane as secretary and treasurer.





Michael Mulgrew--Mulgrew is the incumbent UFT President, endorsed by both Unity and New Action. Mulgrew is the only one of the candidates who did not attend the play date, but in fairness, Emmie admits failing to notify him, having dispensed invites at the doggie park.

NYC Educator reached out to Mulgrew, but Mulgrew did not answer the email. Thus, Mulgrew's position on inter-species elections remains murky. Mulgrew is a member of the Unity Caucus, and it has characterized its opponents as "Chicken little." Both Emmie and Julio took offense at that characterization, insisting neither was chicken. They also felt this characterization was an attack on their diminutive stature, and Emmie cited the Mark Twain quote, "It's not the dog in the fight, it's the fight in the dog." Peppi refused to comment on Mulgrew, vowing not to make the campaign personal. Peppi pointed out the importance of always keeping an open mouth, and noted that Mulgrew was the only candidate, other than himself, to have one.



Peppi--Peppi is also running as an independent, but it's clear his campaign manager, Mike Schirtzer, is affiliated with MORE. Peppi insists he will not be influenced by his manager's affiliation, but we at NYC Educator question his independence.

Peppi attended the doggie play date but has not, to date, agreed to endorse Emmie. He says he is the best candidate for UFT President because not only does he keep his ears open, but he keeps his mouth open as well.

Peppi portrays himself as the social justice candidate. He believes, particularly given the way people vote for the likes of Scott Walker and Andrew Cuomo, that elections should be open to all species. He also believes that there should be a minimum canine age of 2 years, and therefore considers Julio to be unqualified for the position of UFT President. Julio characterized this accusation as excessively "rough."

A lot of people are expressing doubt about the upcoming UFT election. Should I vote for Mulgrew? Should I vote for MORE? They haven't even proposed a candidate, and who can sit around waiting for something like that?

 It's always tough to make important decisions like those. That's why it's so important for us to have another alternative, someone who isn't sociopathic or megalomaniacal, somene who isn't making backdoor deals, someone who not only won't punch your face out for opposing Common Core, but also someone who wouldn't remotely consider opposing Opt-out.

I can further assure you that Julio wouldn't even think of signing a loyalty oath, and would never endorse or sign a substandard contract. Julio won't say one thing and do another, and he'll always support his friends. He isn't secretly angling for some union job, or hoping to become supervisor.

We need someone tough to run our union. I've spent a lot of time with Julio, and I assure you he doesn't think twice about barking at dogs ten times his size. And you better believe he won't back down from a dirtbag like Cuomo. If Cuomo approached me the way he approaches most teachers, Julio would bite his ankle for sure.

Furthermore, Julio won't be chasing after some seat at the table. He couldn't care less about a seat at the table. You see that piece of rawhide he has? I bought that at Petco, and it's the best thing he's ever seen in his life. He wouldn't trade it for any seat at any table. And I assure you he won't be going around throwing all sorts of cash around on expense accounts either. 

One of the most important elements in a leader is trust. I trust Julio absolutely, and he trusts me too. I know he won't be writing nasty stuff about me when I turn my back. He's not spending all his time online reading scurrilous rumors on blogs, let alone spreading them. He won't betray your confidences or turn on you.

I wasn't going to make an endorsement so early, but I know the field, and I think it's time we broaden it. We need a leader who won't sell us out for political expedience. We need a leader who we can count on and trust. We need a leader who won't take any crap from the likes of Cuomo, Flanagan, or whatever tinhorn politician comes down the pike.

That's why NYC Educator endorses Julio for UFT President in 2016. Haven't consulted yet with Arwen, but hoping she comes on board. I can assure her Julio comes with none of the baggage associated with already declared candidates.

Are you with me?

Related: EdNotes takes offense, declares Julio's nomination undemocratic, and throws his cats' bowls into the ring.

Update: Julio apologizes for his haste, endorses both Bernice and Penny Lane, and adds them to his ticket. Julio claims to now be the only candidate who does not discriminate based on species.

There has been a myth circulating, probably as old as time itself, that teachers have it easy.  It is given credence by the fact teachers have their summers off and still get paid...

One of the great things about being a teacher union leader is you always win. You win when there are 22 components in Danielson and you fight back Bloomberg's call for only seven. You win again when there are 22 and you negotiate it down to 8 (almost exactly what Bloomberg wanted).

You win when there's a transfer plan that allows teachers to go where they wish. You also win when you give up that plan and teachers can go nowhere without the OK of a principal. You not only win when you get a junk science evaluation system, but you also get to dump the sitting President of NYSUT because he helped you win that.

This year Governor Cuomo, whose popularity is at an all-time low, pushed through a revision of the APPR, expressly designed because too few teachers were getting low ratings. UFT President Michael Mulgrew sent an email thanking the Assembly for that. Why? Because, of course, it was a victory. Everything is a victory. We always win. Those who criticize junk science, like me, like Carol Burris and a large percentage of NY principals, like Diane Ravitch, are cranks, Chicken Little, shouting the sky is falling. Why?

Because this year fewer people were rated poorly than under the old system. Of course, under the old system, you were not necessarily bound for 3020a after two years of crap ratings. Furthermore, under the old system, it was on the DOE to prove you were unfit. Under the new system, if a member of the UFT rat squad says so, the burden of proof is on you, the teacher.

Now that UFT has dumped the former President of NYSUT, the new one has adopted the UFT good news policy. Here's an excerpt from a Karen Magee email:

We beat back the education tax credit that would have been a giveaway to rich supporters of private schools, stopped the push to make the tax cap permanent, and made progress on testing and transparency.

Now this isn't the first time we "beat back" the tax credit. It likely will not be the last time it rears its ugly head, and it's far from time to rest on our laurels. And Ms. Magee omits the fact that we're sending private schools 250 million bucks. And while the tax cap isn't permanent, it isn't gone either.

Note that this is not about what we achieved. It's about what we didn't lose yet. It's like when your friend tells you about all the things he's done for you. Remember when you were walking down the stairs and I didn't push you? Remember when we went out for coffee and I didn't put poison in your latte? Remember when we were walking by that semi-frozen lake and I didn't toss you in?

Just forget about all the broken promises in the leaflet above. So what if they utterly failed to oppose Cuomo when he was actually running for election? Who cares if Karen Magee and her Unity BFFs have not only failed to oppose Common Core, but spoken forcefully for it at AFT?  What does it matter if they not only failed to do anything against APPR, but also labeled its new steroid-laced draconian iteration a legislative victory? They still haven't joined that Fort Orange Club. Maybe next week they won't join it again. 

It will be another grand victory.

Related: A local union leader stands up to the nonsense. 

That's all there is and there ain't no more. I know it will be tough. How can you relax without the Sword of Danielson perpetually balanced over your head? How will you be at peace with yourself without knowing the 30-year-old Boy Wonder might pop in with his iPad and let you know all the many ways you've gone astray and exactly why you're such a worthless mass of protoplasm? It will be tough, what with a seat at the beach, a coconut filled with a piñacolada in one hand, and a Common Core-prohibited piece of fiction in the other.

But, of course, you will have to manage. As will I, and as will we all. It will be tough not getting up at 5 AM to run like hell and get dressed to drive away in the dark. It will be a struggle not to plot and scheme about how to win the never-ending battle with the smart girl with the fast mouth in the third row. And what about all the meetings you won't be attending? 80 minutes on Monday and 70 on Tuesday. 40 minutes each and every day in some multi-session schools. That will be tough to break away from.

But we all have to make sacrifices. We'll have to go out to lunch, go on trips, and travel. We'll have to read things other than textbooks. We'll have to see people we never get to see and do things we never get to do.

I've been teaching over thirty years now, and despite all the awful nonsense that swirls around us I've never appreciated my job more than I do now. I love the kids I serve, and I appreciate the opportunity to know them and help them. Maybe one of the reasons the reformies attack us so viciously is that they know how good this job is and how bad they'd be at it. Probably not, because they're only in it for the money.

But no matter how much I like my actual job, I can't say I mind the time off either.

I wish you all a happy, healthy and prosperous summer. I hope you get to spend time with family and friends. I hope you get to pursue all the interests you've been postponing due to the need to, you know, work.

Lord knows you deserve it. And if you want to hear about all the depressing and unconscionable things the reformies are doing while you're off, I'm here just about every day.

I recently received an email from a UFT employee chiding certain schools for not appointing delegates to the UFT Delegate Assembly. It complained about those who asked why UFT didn't support Zephyr Teachout and suggested it was their own fault for not getting involved. Well, I'm pretty involved and frankly, the Delegate Assembly is just about the last place I'd expect to have my voice heard.

Whenever someone in leadership stands up against opt-out, for a substandard contract, most of the DA votes with them, predictably  and on cue. When James Eterno spoke against the contract Mulgrew turned off his mike. When Eterno said we'd established the worst pattern ever for our brother and sister employees Mulgrew denied it, but offered no evidence otherwise. I've yet to see any, and I can't recall anything quite as bad as 10% over 7 years.

A young delegate from our school watched Eterno get shut down and said, “An elementary student could see how unfair this is.” She's very helpful in our school and she will come to the DA if I ask her. Still, I won’t ask her to come just to pass the time. Most members of the DA have taken an oath to vote with leadership and risk not only convention trips, but often UFT gigs if they vote the wrong way. In fact, the person who sent me that email would be out of a job if he stepped out of line. This would not be so bad if stepping out of line didn't entail opposing Common Core, mayoral control, bad contracts, and a host of other things that hurt not only us, but also the children we serve.

I represent the largest high school in Queens, we have multiple delegates, but making them come would not make a dent in the pre-determined results. When Unity leadership sends the message, everyone knows and acts accordingly. It's infuriating to see the DA represented as a place where decisions are made, as opposed to a place where people are telegraphed how to vote, with virtually no subtlety whatsoever.

I have never been recognized at the DA. I have better luck, and a larger, more diverse audience, in the Daily News. The last time I tried to speak, Mulgrew recognized a Unity Caucus member, three feet to my left, three times as I waved my hand in vain. Unlike most in the body, I was wearing a suit,  but nonetheless invisible to the President. At that time, Joel Klein was trying to charge schools for opening before 8 and closing after four. My overcrowded school actually gave classes hours before 8 and after 4. I thought it was a pretty salient point, but our school of over 4,000 was not on Michael Mulgrew's agenda that day.

Those who complain of the UFT's failure to support brilliant, pro-public education Zephyr Teachout are not Johnies-come-lately, and it's not like they haven't tried to be heard at the DA. In fact there was a resolution at a DA last year to decline support for Cuomo last year and it was shot down.  We followed up by deciding to do nothing in the WFP election, and it appeared unions, including UFT, would have withdrawn support of WFP had they supported Teachout. NYSUT and UFT did nothing in the Democratic primary and Weingarten made calls for Hochul, who thanked her by speaking at Eva’s latest rally. We all did nothing in the general and everyone knows just how well that worked out.

I have tried to get  dissident voices heard by leadership, and the DA is just about the worst forum in which I could do it. When the contract was under discussion, I tried to enable an open forum. I had a journalist interested in moderating it. I was planning to record it and make it available to all, but leadership objected to the journalist moderating, suggesting he might write about it. At that point I knew they would never agree to having this forum recorded and made available to rank and file.

Our delegates actively support union within our school and will come make Hail Mary votes against junk science APPR or bad contracts. I could drag them monthly to hear about what a great job leadership is doing and how anyone who disagrees doesn't believe in democracy.

The fact is, though, that lack of interest in being delegates in some schools is a direct function of the cynicism engendered by a leadership that builds brick walls around people like me and other acolytes of Diane Ravitch.

In the wake of the insane shooting that took the lives of churchgoers, for the offense of their skin color, a lot of Americans are thinking this--how the hell did that insane racist get his hands on a firearm? How can we keep firearms from lunatics and criminals?

It's very tough to do this in the United States. For one thing, the NRA is very powerful. It does everything it can to hinder any and all restrictions on firearms. And a big talking point is that there are too many, not too few laws. Another, around here, is how tough the laws are in New York and New Jersey. These arguments sound pretty good unless you consider them a little more carefully.

There's a glaring gun show loophole in the United States. I mentioned this on Facebook, and a commenter replied that New York had very tough gun show rules. However, if 33 other states don't, what difference does it make? You can go to some show, buy a gun, and bring it to New York or anywhere else with no issue. What difference does it make how tough the laws are in New York or New Jersey if you can freely go elsewhere and buy anything?

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and no one checks anyone crossing state borders. That's why Bonnie and Clyde were always crossing them. In Iowa, blind people can get gun permits. I'm not sure they can get driver's licenses, so they may have to enlist friends to drive them over state borders, but you get my point. State laws are largely irrelevant, and a poor argument against regulating firearms. While they don't work, it's ridiculous to determine, therefore, that legislation is useless. That implies Americans should shrug our collective shoulders, sigh, and say, "Oh well, I guess we'll have more churches and schools shot up." 

Another objection I hear is that many of the guns in these incidents are unregistered. Considering that anyone can go to any of 33 states and buy a firearm without a background check, that's not surprising. What's surprising is that any thinking person could oppose closing the gun show loophole. Guns don't magically rain from the sky. Gun owners should be responsible for accounting for their guns and immediately reporting their sale, disposal or theft. Guns need to be regulated nationally, not by state.

Some will argue that this violates the 10th Amendment, or that this abridges their rights under the 2nd Amendment. Some will say this violates the sanctity of the Constitution. But the fact is, the Constitution was not given to Moses by God on a mountaintop. Were that the case, there would be no need for amendments. And the amendments are not etched in stone on those tablets either.

It's our job to prevent further atrocities. It's our job to do everything in our power to remove options from lunatics. I don't see how that hinders law-abiding gun owners, but with all due respect, they are not priority number one for me. The presumption that their right to own guns trumps the right of churchgoers and students to worship and study in peace is a poor one.

This country bends over backwards to accommodate the NRA. It also bends over backwards to accommodate Bill Gates. It's time we do what's best for our people, rather than what's best for those who stuff the most cash into the pockets of our politicians.

That's what you need to proctor efficiently. For example, every time you write the time on the board, who the hell knows what's going on? Should you write one number at a time and then duck around? Or will that take more time than actually writing them all at once? And what if something else happens? Doesn't something else always happen? Isn't that why you have this job?

Let's say, for instance, you're proctoring in a huge art classroom. It is like an oven. The girl in front of you wipes her brow and looks at you imploringly, her eyes saying, holy crap, can't you do anything about this? You look back at her, wanting to be the Superman she's Waiting For, and ask, "Does the AC work?" The guy next to her says the other teacher says it doesn't, but you, being the big hero, have to check.

So you turn on a switch, hear a sound, but you have to climb up on a table to ascertain whether or not the sound means anything. It does not. You then climb down, and contemplate plan B, allowing air to circulate. You go to the back door, ask the girl blocking it to move up one seat, and then use her former seat to prop open the back door. Then you go to the front, where a trash can has the door open two or three inches and open up that door fully with another student desk. You then note the miracle of air circulating from window, to door, to windows in the hallway, and you think, "This is not so bad. Maybe I can be one of those hero teachers like in the movies and have some insipid movie star pretend to be me."

But just as you're getting set to calculate how much your consultant fee ought to be, disaster strikes. There are posters all over the room, and they are rustling, because whoever put them up only taped them on top, never contemplating that some day there might be air in the room. How can kids concentrate with all that noise? Is there any tape in the teacher desk? You find some Scotch Tape in the second drawer, but darn it, the teacher just used it all and placed it back in there empty. The next one? Nothing. Just some papers from ten years ago that never got handed back. The next one? An antediluvian English textbook. It is not until the very last drawer that you hit the mother lode--a thick roll of masking tape. You tape one, you tape another, but the noisiest, most rustling poster there is way in the back.

It's by the air conditioner, and you have to climb up on the table again to get at it. Naturally the Spanish teacher picks that very moment to come in and do her dictation. She looks at you like you are out of your mind. You look at her and try to convey silently that while you may indeed be out of your mind, it's not for this particular reason. After all, here you are risking your neck so that the children can hear her read about whatever it is she's reading about.

You tape the noisy poster, and does anyone thank you? The girl who was about to collapse of heat stroke before your heroic efforts? The teacher whose voice would not have carried above those rustling papers that sounded like Niagara Falls? Does the mayor come and give you a medal? Does UFT leadership repent, go back to the bargaining table, and try to get the $50,000 NYC owes you before you're in a wheelchair?

Nope. None of these things happen. And if that isn't bad enough, the teacher who's coming to relieve you shows up three minutes late, three minutes in which you could've had a revelation, determined the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything, or perhaps even figured out what it is that is causing that pain in your toe.

But no. That three minutes is lost, you will never get them back and worst of all, no one will know of the heroic obstacles you overcame to ensure none of those kids would disappear into a pile of sweat underneath some gum-encrusted relic the NYC Department of Education interprets as furniture. 

Students took the Global History and Geography Regents last week.  In addition to fifty multiple-choice questions and a document-based essay with short-answer scaffolding, students had to write a thematic essay on belief systems.  They had to discuss a central belief of two systems as well as the spread of each system and its effects, once transplanted.

Some teachers were relieved.  They had guessed the question correctly.  They had given a similar question on their final.  They had reviewed the topic a day or two before.

I was a little less lucky.  I reviewed the topic a month and a half earlier...when we were first asked to begin our review.  I had not tested the same topic on the final.  I had not reviewed it again, a day or two before.  Looking on the bright side, if I hadn't reviewed it with them at all, they would have either needed to remember it from two falls back--when they were ninth graders--or from their own self-regulated review.  The latter doesn't happen much these days.

As we all know, it is one day of testing that is supposed to reflect best on our full year of teaching and the totality of knowledge absorbed by our students.  And besides needing to review like crazy to (ironically) try to prove that we are good teachers, we need loads of luck to correctly predict essay topics.

Some of my colleagues pat themselves on the back.  They mentioned this or that which their students can use as outside information for the DBQ.  I know better.  You know something and you mention it, but the test is not measuring the teacher.  The test is measuring the brain of a sometimes distracted teenager.  It was important to you that you mentioned "x," but it went in one ear of your student and out the other.  Your students were dreaming about "y."  It's probably a heck of a lot more interesting!

Despite the optimism of the most optimistic, most student essays will leave something to be desired.  Many kids may be able to explain a number of tenets of each religion, but the thematic question demands a discussion of the spread of the belief systems.  Here, I know students will sadly fall short.

It's not that we failed to teach them.  We merely failed to focus upon what the test makers chose to focus upon this year.  If we focus upon it next year, the test makers will have already moved on to something else.  Will we be able to guess it?

As the forces of "reform" fight to revoke tenure, the challenging nature of future Common-Core aligned exams may soon prove in a single day of testing (just three-hours time) that we are all failures, worthy of being held back or fired.

But for now, it's June.  The summer vacation will soon be upon us.  You've done the best YOU can do.  And you've even tried to spread the word about the stupidity of this system.  So, let's live for today...while the Governor and his supporters in Albany try to find new ways to eliminate our tomorrows!  "Sha-la-la-la-la-la, live for today and don't worry 'bout tomorrow..."

I've been reading that the Common Core math tests will be a rousing success, because their passing percentages will be the same as the Regents math tests were. That way, no one will say, "Gee, Common Core is failing everyone, and therefore it sucks." Thus, there will be no torches and pitchforks over at the gubernatorial palace, or wherever  Andrew Cuomo keeps his coffin, or his oversized ego, or whatever it is that motivates him to behave as he does.

On the other hand, imagine if you were to give tests on such a basis. You'd have to say to your students, "I can't tell you now how much each question is worth. I'll have to see how many people get it right or wrong first. What I can tell you is this--70% of you will pass, and 30% will fail." What would your students say to that? And what if your plan, as was John King's, was to pass 30% and fail 70? Would Arne Duncan give you an award and make some idiotic remark about how wrong the soccer moms are? Would he say this proves the kids aren't as smart as the moms think they are?

Because if he didn't, you'd be facing a world of problems, especially if some parent called to complain about your grading policies. I don't know about you, but one of the things my AP looks for on tests is point values for questions. In my school, it's unacceptable to write a test, decide which percentage of kids I want to pass, and then grade accordingly. After all, were I to do that, I wouldn't actually be writing a test. A test is supposed to measure what my students have learned, not memorialize a decision I'd made beforehand.

In fact, if I just want 70% of kids to pass my test, why does it even need to cover the subject I teach? Maybe I won't bother to write an English test. I'll photocopy an old Earth Science Regents exam and make everyone take that. What the difference? 70% of the kids will pass, just like I wanted. Who cares if the overall scores are low? When I give tests like those, I'm not actually measuring anything. I'm just using a useless document as quasi-tangible evidence that my prediction, which will come true regardless, is actually based on something.

Since it doesn't matter what the test covers, and since 70% are going to pass no matter what, why should we even bother with this school stuff at all? Isn't it expensive to send kids to school, even those charter schools I keep reading about? Couldn't we convert all that unprofitable public school real estate into condos for gazillionaires? Since everything is based on tests, and since the tests are basically meaningless, why don't we stop making kids wake up early in the morning and just let them take tests on their home computers? Who cares if they cheat? It doesn't matter because 70% of them are still gonna pass.

That's the NYSED model and Andrew Cuomo wants half of teacher ratings to depend on it. And our union leader thanked the Heavy Hearts in the Assembly for passing it. There's a Chinese saying, "I've eaten more salt than you've eaten rice." It kind of means you have a whole lot more experience than another person. You don't need to have eaten much salt to assess the quality of program Andrew Cuomo and his Heavy Hearts Club envision for our public school students. 

Yesterday I spoke with a young teacher who told me this was his worst year ever. I asked him why and he told me it was the evaluation system. He says it has him and everyone on edge. I asked whether he had gotten a negative rating and he said no, he hadn't. He was just feeling a general vibe of uneasiness. He told me our school wasn't what it used to be four years ago.

One of the things I found really shocking was that this is a guy who generally complains about nothing, ever. He has this very positive vibe, and this makes me think he must be a great teacher. I would be very happy to have someone like him looking after my kid. He told me that, though there is a whole lot of focus on test scores, that he doesn't worry about that first and foremost. Who knows where our kids come from? Who knows what they have going on at home? It's our job to show them there's a whole world of possibility out there.

I agree with that. Particularly if home is a place of uncertainty, or worse, there's a need for kids to see adults who are getting by. There's a need for kids to see there is possibility, that there is a way to maneuver through this world while managing to stay happy. That's why it's counter-intuitive, not to mention idiotic, to stress out teachers to the breaking point. If this teacher feels stressed out, then so does every teacher.

It's easy for Michael Mulgrew, who has not taught in years, to stand around and say we have fewer bad ratings this year than in years past, so the system is a victory. I can only suppose it's also easy for Mulgrew to ignore the fact that this is the very thing that motivated Andrew Cuomo and his Heavy Hearts to worsen things for working teachers. For Michael Mulgrew, it really doesn't matter whether that plan causes more teachers to get bad ratings. Because there's always a silver lining. Under my leadership, 95% of UFT teachers didn't get fired this year.

Under UFT Unity leadership, the Teacher Improvement Plans were 8% less degrading and humiliating than last year. Under our leadership, 12% fewer teacher meeting weekly with the supervisors who rated them ineffective have contemplated suicide. Under our leadership, we haven't had a catastrophic natural disaster in over two years.

Unfortunately, when you live in a system where absolutely everything is a victory, no one feels it when things are bad. No one knows when things are bad. Things are not permitted to be bad. And the great thing is most representatives have actually signed an oath to perpetually agree that this is the best of all possible worlds, the best of all possible school systems, and the best of all possible evaluation systems negotiated by the best of all possible union leaderships.

I'm not sure what I would say to such people if I had signed the oath. I suppose I could trot out the stat about fewer people getting bad ratings. But I know if the guy I spoke to yesterday is stressed out, so is every working teacher. That's not how you treat role models for children, not if you actually care about those children. 

Extra Credit: Name the bluesman in the photo.