Perdido Street School

James Eterno wrote back in early December that UFT President Michael Mulgrew has hinted a UFT endorsement of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is coming soon.

Mulgrew's reasoning?

Other unions have already announced early endorsements of de Blasio, there will be a corporate-funded general election candidate who will look to run against public education and the teachers union, and de Blasio settled all the outstanding contracts with the municipal unions that Bloomberg refused to settle in his third term.

Since that Mulgrew hint, we also learned that AFT President Randi Weingarten will hold a fundraiser for de Blasio in January:

Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, will hold a fundraiser for Mayor Bill de Blasio’s re-election campaign in January, according to a copy of the invitation obtained by POLITICO New York.

The fundraiser will be held at AFT headquarters in Washington on January 5. Guest tickets are $1,000 a head, “supporter” tickets are $2,500, and “host” tickets are $4,950.

The event will be co-hosted by the lobbyist Harold Ickes, a friend and mentor to de Blasio who has enjoyed lobbying successes under de Blasio’s tenure. Ickes’ lobbying partner, Janice Enright, will also co-host the fundraiser. John Stocks, the director of the National Education Association, the nation’s other most prominent teachers union, is on the host committee for the event.

The event comes as de Blasio begins to gather endorsements from the city’s most prominent unions — both the Uniformed Sanitationmen’s Association and the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store union have given the mayor their early endorsements. But de Blasio has not yet won the endorsement of the United Federation of Teachers, the largest and most powerful branch of the AFT, representing teachers in New York City.

Weingarten’s upcoming fundraiser could add to pressure for UFT president Michael Mulgrew to give the mayor his union’s endorsement soon.

Now those of you who are close Randi/Mulgrew watchers know there is no daylight between either, so it's doubtful that the Weingarten fundraiser is "pressure" coming from Randi onto Mulgrew to endorse de Blasio early as opposed to another part of a multi-pronged strategy to get on board the de Blasio express early and prove loyalty to the mayor (especially necessary since the UFT worked against de Blasio in the primary last time around.)

That strategy might make some sense if de Blasio was a powerful incumbent with a proven track record of helping teachers and public schools, but as James wrote in his piece on the likely UFT endorsement, the case for that is slim:

In the school system I work in, teachers and other UFT members feel almost like they are under siege on a daily basis in multiple schools. Many of us fear drive by Danielson observations by abusive administrators, being rated based on student test scores in schools where the students are not exactly well prepared, overburdened paperwork demands made by those abusive principals and their assistants, the war on seniority with (un)fair student funding which makes senior teachers a burden on school budgets and much, much more.

Our job has been turned into a nightmare in many school buildings. In spite of the working conditions deteriorating to the point where a large number of teachers cannot physically or emotionally take it much longer, our Union President's response is hinting that we want more of the same.

Add in the de Blasio contract that holds back pay to 2020 (but only if you're still in the system!) and gives yearly increase averages of just over 1% and gee, what's not to like about endorsing de Blasio early, given all that wonderful stuff?

Well, how about the news that de Blasio is the subject of two grand jury investigations and criminal charges are likely to come against some of his cronies (and perhaps even de Blasio himself)?

Two separate grand juries in Manhattan have begun hearing testimony in connection with federal and state criminal investigations into Mayor Bill de Blasio’s campaign fund-raising, according to several people with knowledge of the matters.

It was unclear whether either inquiry would result in criminal charges against the mayor, but the grand jury activity appeared to be the strongest indication since the investigations came to light in April that prosecutors may be moving closer to one or more indictments, possibly against some of Mr. de Blasio’s closest aides.

The inquiries have centered on Mr. de Blasio, a Democrat, and several of his senior aides, according to the people with knowledge of the matter, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because grand jury proceedings are secret.

The state investigation has focused on whether the mayor, or those acting with him or on his behalf, violated state election law by raising hundreds of thousands of dollars through three upstate county committees and funneling it to Democratic candidates during the party’s unsuccessful 2014 bid to gain control of the State Senate.

The questions asked by state prosecutors in their grand jury presentations suggest their inquiry is in some measure centered on Emma Wolfe, Mr. de Blasio’s top political aide, Ross A. Offinger, who was then his campaign finance director, and Josh Gold, a union political operative who worked on the 2014 Senate effort, the people with knowledge of the inquiry said.

The federal investigation has examined whether Mr. de Blasio or his aides took beneficial action on behalf of donors in exchange for contributions they had made to his 2013 mayoral campaign, his political nonprofit or both in roughly a half-dozen instances, according to people with knowledge of that inquiry.

As I wrote Thursday, this leak came straight out of publicity-happy US Attorney Preet Bharara's office and Preet doesn't leak this kind of stuff without criminal charges following soon.

That's how it played out with Shelly Silver, Dean and Adam Skelos and Cuomo's cronies Joe Percoco and Alain Kaloyeros - there's no reason to think it won't play out the same way here.

With criminal charges all but certain against somebody linked to de Blasio and with the NYC media already having an adversarial relationship with the churlish de Blasio, you can bet he's going to get hammered day after day after day in the newspapers and on TV, further weakening an already weak incumbent (polls consistently show de Blasio is underwater on the "Deserves Re-Election" question.)

Now I can understand why the UFT would look to finagle an early endorsement of de Blasio despite his administration showing itself to be anti-teacher in its treatment of teachers in the evaluation process (superintendents are instructing school administrators to ratchet up "ineffective" and "developing" ratings against teachers, especially veteran teachers), the budgeting process (which rewards schools that shed veteran teachers) and contractually (back pay all the way to 2020) - that's because the UFT leadership only cares about the access de Blasio and Chancellor Farina have granted them, not how they have treated their members so badly.

But why would the UFT want to announce an endorsement of de Blasio now with Preet bearing down on him and charges coming for one or more de Blasio cronies?

That Thursday night leak to the NY Times about the state and federal grand juries looking into de Blasio didn't come out of nowhere - that's a clear indication that Preet intends some charges against someone and wants to give a heads up that they're coming.

There's no indication yet that the charges will reach de Blasio himself, but even if they don't, weakened unpopular incumbent that he is, de Blasio may not be able to withstand major figures in his political circle getting taken down on criminal charges.

I think the UFT would be smart to wait for Preet to make a move and see what the political and practical fallout is before they endorse.

But the words "smart" and "UFT leadership" do not sit well together, so they just may continue with the AFT/UFT pro-de Blasio strategy despite new information that suggests that strategy may be politically and practically short-sighted and ill-conceived.

Remember when AFT President Randi Weingarten made robocalls for bank lobbyist Kathy Hochul when Hochul was running for lieutenant governor and was having some problems dispensing with her opponent, Tim Wu, in the polling?

Here's how Hochul pays Union Prez Weingarten back - by attending a fundraiser for her boss, Andrew Cuomo, given by an anti-union group with links to construction firms with histories of safety violations and worker fatalities:

The attorney for a campaign against union construction labor is co-hosting a fundraiser for Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

On Monday afternoon, the founding partners of Gotham Government Relations invited powerbrokers to a Jan. 7 fundraiser for Cuomo at the home of Brad and Cheryl Gerstman in Roslyn, on Long Island.

The hosts are listed as the Gerstmans and David and Heather Schwartz. Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul is scheduled to make an appearance, according to the invitation. It’s not clear whether Cuomo himself will attend.

...

State records indicate their firm lobbies for 400 Times Square Associates LLC, which is reportedly using non-union labor to develop a hotel at 577 Ninth Ave., where a construction worker recently died.

As of last month, Gerstman was also an attorney for the Rinaldi Group, a building contractor whose license was pulled for running unsafe job sites. The city launched an investigation into Rinaldi after a worker perished at a Rinaldi construction site in Midtown.

Gerstman is also frontman for BuildingNYC, a group launched this month that advocates against union construction labor.

There's so much wrong here.

First, that Cuomo doesn't have the guts to attend himself shows you what a coward he is - if he wants the anti-union money with the blood on it, the least he can do is show up at the fundraiser to take it with his own hands.

Second, as many of us expected with Hochul's past as a bank lobbyist, she is happily anti-union and demonstrates this with her attendance at this anti-union group's fundraiser.

Third, Cuomo's been making a lot of hay recently with liberals, pushing for some prison reforms, pushing for a minimum wage hike and the like, but liberals ought not to be fooled by any of this.

Nothing's changed with the anti-union/anti-worker Cuomo, clearly, or he wouldn't be taking the blood money from the anti-union group linked to construction firms with histories of safety violations and worker fatalities.

As for Hochul, let's just note that if there suddenly is a vacancy n the governor's mansion and she gets elevated to governor, she's squarely shown her anti-union/anti-worker bona fides.

In April 2014, former NYSUT President Richard Iannuzzi was ousted by AFT President Randi Weingarten and UFT President Michael Mulgrew in a coup that saw the entire leadership of NYSUT, other than Executive Vice President Andy Pallotta, whacked from office.

Today Ken Lovett at the Daily News reports another NYSUT leadership whacking could be in the offing:

The recent surprise retirement of the state teacher union’s top lobbyist came amid pressure from Michael Mulgrew, head of the city teachers union, sources said.

Mulgrew, whose members make up a major segment of the state union, is said to have grown disenchanted with Steve Allinger during the legislative session.

Mulgrew didn’t deny he played a role in Allinger’s departure.

“We have to get work done, move fast, and everyone has to be on the same page,” he said.

Union insiders say the Allinger situation is part of a larger schism that has left state teachers union President Karen Magee isolated from the rest of her union leadership halfway through her first term.

Sources said Mulgrew is also unhappy with Magee, though he denied it.

The two unions, Mulgrew said, “are moving together in a much more coordinated effort than we were before. All (Magee’s) positions have been good. She’s taking the right path on things.”

It was NYSUT that was telling members of the Legislature NOT vote for Cuomo's poison pill budget that increased the test score component in APPR to 50% and gave the state the power to takeover schools with a "receivership" program, while Mulgrew and the UFT were telling them it was okay if they did vote for it.

If Magee's isolated from the rest of her union leadership (i.e., Andy Pallotta, Mikey's Man at NYSUT), it can't be because Mulgrew thinks she's not standing up enough against Cuomo and his ed deform juggernaut.

Hell, nobody rolled over to Cuomo more than Mulgrew and the UFT in the last legislative session.

In any event, it sure didn't long for another UFT-engineered whacking at NYSUT, did it?

Nick Reisman at State of Politics:

The American Federation of Teachers is touting in a digital and print advertising campaign the pension fund investment in the plan overhaul of LaGuardia Airport — a pet project of Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

LaGuardia Gateway Partners, the entity formed as one of the main vehicles for the project to renovate the sagging airport, includes the California State Teachers’ Retirement System as an investory.

The overhaul, as announced by Cuomo and Vice President Joe Biden this summer, is expected to cost $3.6 billion at Terminal B at the airport. The partners consortium is expected to finance $2 billion of the project, with $1 billion coming from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

“We wanted America to know that nurses, teachers and public workers across the country are investing in America—they are creating tens of thousands of good jobs by leveraging their pension assets and rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure—in addition to treating patients, teaching our kids and protecting our communities,” said AFT President Randi Weigarten. “This is solution-driven unionism. It proves what can happen when creative and innovative thinking is applied to America’s most pressing challenges, such as our crumbling infrastructure.”

The ad campaign will be conducted through terminals A, B, C and D at the airport.

Cuomo's pet project getting jump-started with pension money from teachers after Cuomo promised to "break" public schools.

You just can't make this up.

The next time you see some jive from the AFT, NYSUT or UFT about fighting Cuomo, remember how they're helping him out with the pension fund.

From the "We caused it - now we're trying to walk it back without really walking it back" file:

Faced with mounting and bipartisan opposition to increased and often high-stakes testing in the nation’s public schools, the Obama administration declared Saturday that the push had gone too far, acknowledged its own role in the proliferation of tests, and urged schools to step back and make exams less onerous and more purposeful.

... 

“I still have no question that we need to check at least once a year to make sure our kids are on track or identify areas where they need support,” said Arne Duncan, the secretary of education, who has said he will leave office in December. “But I can’t tell you how many conversations I’m in with educators who are understandably stressed and concerned about an overemphasis on testing in some places and how much time testing and test prep are taking from instruction.

“It’s important that we’re all honest with ourselves,” he continued. “At the federal, state and local level, we have all supported policies that have contributed to the problem in implementation. We can and will work with states, districts and educators to help solve it.”

So long as teachers and schools are rated based upon test scores, the "cap" on testing time the Obama administration educrats talk about is meaningless.

In New York State, teachers currently have 20% of their ratings based upon state test scores (even if they don't teach classes that end with state tests) and 20% based upon so-called "local assessment" measures that may be state test data crunched a different way.

Last spring Governor "I want to break the public school monopoly" Cuomo shoved through a reiteration of the evaluation system tied to school funding that increases the weight of state test scores to 50% because not enough teachers were being rated ineffective and fired under the old system.

In addition, he shoved through a school receivership plan that forces "persistently struggling schools" to increase their test scores in one year and "struggling schools" to increase their test scores in two years or be taken over by the state.

With such a test-centric environment (one that was absolutely encouraged by the Obama administration's Race to the Top program and their NCLB waiver system), the Obama educrats can call for a cap on testing time all they want - nothing about the system will change so long as the scores are used to fire teachers and close schools.

In any case, the administration isn't going to put out "guidelines" until January on the testing changes, so for now all we have is some meaningless rhetoric that may excite Randi Weingarten but will have little practical effect on what happens to all the overtesting that is currently going on in schools.

In short, the Endless Testing regime continues no matter the Obama administration public relations statements.

UPDATED - 3:35 PM: Peter Greene points out in comments that the Obama administration has hawked this testing cap gambit before. 

He's got a new post analyzing today's announcement and finds they're

offering pointless PR nuggets and avoiding the real discussion, which is why, exactly, we need the BS Tests at all, and what possible justification there is for using the BS Tests to measure, rank and rate students, teachers or schools.

But the tests are a "civil right," don'tcha know?

Ken Lovett at the Daily News:

The head of the powerful city teachers union is trying to quell talk by some in the labor-backed Working Families Party about backing Bernie Sanders over Hillary Clinton in the presidential primary, insiders say.

United Federation of Teachers President Michael Mulgrew has been contacting heads of the building trade unions who help make up the Working Families Party, a source said. He’s “complaining and bitching” about the party and the discussions on whether to endorse Sanders, the self-proclaimed socialist US senator from Vermont, the source said.

Mulgrew, who declined comment through a spokeswoman, is also a vice president of the American Federation of Teachers, which already has endorsed Clinton.

While the state Working Families Party does not have a presidential primary and does not have to set its ballot until September of 2016, its leaders have not ruled out publicly backing Sanders during the primary season to send a message to Clinton that she needs to go farther to the left.

Considering the damage Governor Cuomo has done to teachers and UFT rank and file, the end of the Lovett column is quite interesting:

The WFP, which was already feuding with Gov. Cuomo, isn’t doing its doing itself any favors alienating a major party player like Mulgrew and the potential Democratic nominee in Clinton, one source said.

In the analysis of this "source," we have Working Families Party and Sanders on one side of the political equation and Mulgrew, Clinton and Cuomo on the other.

That would seem odd, given how Cuomo has declared he wants to "break" teachers and public schools, until you remember that Mulgrew was said to have threatened WFP with financial dissolution if the party endorsed challenger Zephyr Teachout over Cuomo in 2014.

Just another sign that the "fight" between Cuomo and the UFT/AFT/Mulgrew/Weingarten crew is as "real" as something from professional wrestling.

That said, I don't particularly care whether WFP endorses Sanders or not.

Quite frankly, I don't "feel the Bern" after Sanders voted to continue the Endless Testing regime in NCLB Jr.

From my vantage point, Sanders is as full of shit as every other Democratic politician when it comes to the issue that matters most to me - education.

I will be voting Green come 2016 because I cannot and will not support a candidate who supports Endless Testing as a "civil right."

Jimmy Vielkind at Politico NY:

ALBANY — Gov. Andrew Cuomo met with Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the Catholic archbishop of New York, several weeks before re-introducing legislation to grant financial assistance for parents whose children attend private and parochial schools.

According to newly posted schedule records, the Democratic governor huddled with the Catholic prelate as well as with James Cultrara, the Catholic Conference's top education official, and Anthony de Nicola, a fund manager and board member of the group that pushed for the tax credit, on April 13 at the cardinal's residence in midtown Manhattan. Cuomo later held events around the state to rally support for the tax credit, which lawmakers did not enact.

The schedules also show:

-- Cuomo met with a trio of teachers' union leaders, Karen Magee of NYSUT, Michael Mulgrew of the UFT and Randi Weingarten of the AFT, on April 10, and again on April 22. The unions were vociferous opponents of the tax credit plan.

No word on what was discussed at those meetings.

Was it just about the tax credit plans?

Or was the rest of Cuomo's education reform agenda devised to "break" the public school system discussed as well?

In the end, I suppose it doesn't matter because we know what the outcome was:

They weren't terribly successful at much other than holding the line on vouchers (which may have happened because voucher proponents overplayed their hands anyway.)

Cuomo got pretty much everything else on education that he wanted.

Tell me again why the American Federation of Teachers endorsed Hillary Clinton 16 months before the 2016 presidential election?

Hillary Clinton’s first set of campaign ads will begin airing Tuesday in Iowa and New Hampshire as her campaign tries to get ahead of an anticipated onslaught of Republican attacks come the fall.

...

The ads will air in Des Moines and Cedar Rapids, Iowa's two largest markets, and in the Boston/Manchester and Burlington, Vt., markets, which together reach all of New Hampshire.

Some content of the ads:

In HRC's 1st ads, narrator says she "fought 4 school reform" in AR & she describes teacher who brought food 4 her mom http://t.co/Gjxt406s2i

— Josh Eidelson (@josheidelson) August 3, 2015

This is Classic Clinton triangulation - "there was this great teacher who brought food for my mom when she was hungry...but I also fought for school reforms that, in large part, blame teachers for the problems in public education."

There's a sketchy PAC out there that appears to be linked to Clinton that is calling itself "Americas Teachers" that bills itself as "pro-union, pro-reform."

Clinton's first campaign ads appear to be following the same script - pro-teacher/union and pro-reform.

To which I say:

@mma718 @KingsParkAE @americateachers @rweingarten @TeacherArthurG @leoniehaimson Pro-union, pro-reform? Pro-jive.

— rbe (@perdidostschool) August 3, 2015

AFT President Randi Weingarten, presumably one of the recipients of the "punch in the face" Candidate Chris Christie wants to give to national teachers unions, released the following statement about Christie:

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten reacted to Christie after the Republican governor said over the weekend the group deserves a punch in the face. The union leader criticized Christie for promoting a culture of violence.

"Chris Christie has issues—from reneging on his promise to fix pensions to his state's fiscal standing facing near junk bond status. But the biggest issue is he's a bully and has anger management problems," Weingarten said in a statement.

 "That he would threaten to punch teachers in the face — mostly women seeking to help children meet their potential and achieve their dreams — promotes a culture of violence and underscores why he lacks the temperament and emotional skills to be president, or serve in any leadership capacity," she said. "It's a sad day in the life of our nation to see a candidate threaten violence to gain political favor."

Weingarten doesn't use the word "misogynist" in her statement, but clearly that sentiment is there:  "That he would threaten to punch teachers in the face — mostly women seeking to help children meet their potential and achieve their dreams — promotes a culture of violence."

And indeed, he does seem to take a certain glee in blowing up on women, as this infamous incident from 2013 with the attendant photo shows:





Yesterday, the NJEA called for Christie to resign as governor.

57% of New Jersey residents were in agreement with that sentiment as measured by a July Monmouth poll.

Personally I think the more Christie tries to relieve the Glory Days of his early governorship where he beat up on teachers and union members weekly in his infamous town hall videos, the better.

This stuff isn't helping him in the 2016 GOP Presidential Primary, not with Donald Trump have superseded Christie's old act with a much more outrageous (and new) act of his own.

The teacher-bashing just speaks to where Christie stands these days politically post-BridgeGate - trying to live in the old "Glory Days" while the rest of the political world has moved past him.

His teacher-bashing misogyny act doesn't play well anymore - not in New Jersey with voters (where he got booed by 61,000 yesterday - twice) and not in the GOP primary where he lags at the bottom of the race as a political has-been.

But what else can a governor from a state with an economy in the toilet, an infrastructure in tatters, and an electorate furious at him do but try and relive the old days?

You teachers still pissed about the lack of transparency and democracy in the AFT endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president are going to get a lot of laughs out of this story:

Orange County Classroom Teachers Association President Diana Moore, union officers and the board of directors have been relieved of their duties, according to officials with the American Federation of Teachers.

The AFT announced Wednesday that its executive council voted to place the OCCTA on administratorship and relieve Moore and others of their duties, saying, "The action follows a year of dealing with officer and member complaints about the erosion of democratic rights and the increasing dysfunction of their local union, and attempting every voluntary mechanism to right the ship."

The AFT executive council voted to take the action.

“The AFT and the Florida Education Association have exhausted every possible effort to help the union operate by its own bylaws. The current president, Diana Moore, has refused to comply, believing she is above the union’s governing documents. This has led to members’ rights being denied, their voices not being heard, member services being diminished, and an increasingly dysfunctional union,” AFT President Randi Weingarten said in a press release. “Today’s action, while permitted under the AFT constitution, is rarely exercised. It’s intended as a temporary measure to restore credibility and order and to return democratic rights to members.”

More on the absurdity of using the words "Weingarten," "credibility" and "democratic rights" in one sentence in a future post.

For now I want to stick to the story as we have it.

First, here's why the AFT claimed they took this action:

The national president said officials spent months investigating and found financial concerns, but
the biggest issue was that Moore wasn’t following the bylaws and forced them to re-run four elections because she interfered and campaigned on the clock.

Investigators findings showed Moore "made unbudgeted purchases exceeding $1,000 without board approval."

To avoid getting approval, Moore would allegedly use a union credit card "that draws payments directly from the OCCTA's money market account."

AFT leaders said Moore used union resources and emails to push for candidates she endorsed in the elections she interfered with.

"There was an allegation she was working on the clock doing union business and in schools while campaigning at the same time. That's inappropriate," Andy Ford of the Florida Education Association said.

"There was a repeated and systemic and intentional interference with elections, even when those elections had been supervised by the state affiliates,” Weingarten said.

Repeated, systemic and intentional interference with elections?

You don't say.

I wonder if Moore increased the weight of retiree votes the way the UFT did here in New York.

In any case, I dunno if the financial impropriety story is real or Weingarten-engineered b.s. because another story reports this:

The Orange County Classroom Teacher's Association represents 13,000 teachers and appeared to be doing a good job for its members when it came to contract negotiations.  But officials from the union's national office said the inner workings of the Orange County CTA were dysfunctional and consistently violated the union's bylaws. Most of the blame was placed on the union's president, Diana Moore.

"Diana believed that her way was the way as opposed to following rules, regulations, bylaws and constitution of her local," said Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers.

Officials with the AFT said while there was no financial impropriety, Moore denied members their voice and improperly influenced the union's elections.

Ah, yes - the classic AFT/UFT/NYSUT muddle.

Some say this, some say that, but no one really knows because there's conflicting information out there meant to distract and divert.

Regardless for why Moore was the target of a Weingarten putsch, I do know that clearly the AFT leadership meant business:

ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. —A local teacher's union saw its leadership team gutted this week and officials from the national office are in town to take over.

The Orange County teachers union president and board of directors have been let go because many members reportedly felt their voice wasn't being heard.

The takeover of the Orange County teachers union by the national union was drastic. A locksmith was called to change all the locks in the building and a spokeswoman said the president and the board of directors were no longer allowed in the building.

Yeah, they brought in the locksmiths to change the locks.

Nice, eh?

Moore, the deposed president of the local, was on vacation at the time of the putsch and didn't know she had been whacked until after the fact:

Moore told Channel 9 that she is on vacation and was unaware of the decision.

“As a dues-paying union member, I was not afforded the opportunity to have representation all throughout this matter. What I have tried to do is preserve the rights and due process of all members of Orange County Classroom Teachers Association. I’m shocked that the national union does not honor a paying union member’s rights to due process. Our members in Orange County are quite happy with their union. NEA has remained silent despite reaching out for support. This is all about members and money. They’re losing members and money in the national organization. It’s politics at its worst,” Moore said in a statement to Channel 9.

As for where things go from here:

The national union's vice president, Dennis Kelly, will be brought in from California to serve as interim leader. The officials from the national union say they do not believe Orange County teachers have suffered any significant harm from the issues with their local leadership. The Orange County CTA recently negotiated one of the highest contract settlements in the state.

Gee, Moore must have been terrible, having just negotiated one of the highest contracts in the state.

No wonder Weingarten had her goons jet down to Orange County and whack her out of a job.

Perhaps Moore was tampering as the AFT leaders claim.

Perhaps she was engaged in financial impropriety, as one story says the AFT claimed.

Or perhaps Weingarten and her Unity goons didn't like Moore and wanted her out.

I'm sure we'll get more on the story in the near future, but as with most stories involving the AFT or Randi Weingarten, we'll have to work closely to pull the nuggets of truth out of all the b.s.

More as we get it.

And more on the laugh riot of Weingarten whacking a local president and board for a lack of transparency, eroding the democratic rights of members and silencing rank and file voices in a future post.

That's a hoot, isn't it?

UPDATED - 8:50 AM: Megan Moskop, the teacher with whom Leo was engaging, writes to say that Leo was talking about the caucus structure within the union, not the union itself. 

If so, he wasn't doing a very good job of it because it reads as if he was talking about the union as a whole, not the caucuses within.

No matter what Leo was talking about (and given Leo's convolutions, it's often hard to know), the dismissive attitude, the scorn for member concerns and the refusal to hear anybody else's critiques remains, as does the looming issue of what happens if the Supreme Court rules against unions in Friedrichs next year.

If the AFT/UFT/NYSUT leadership does not make a course correction in how it deals with members concerns and criticism, they will find fewer and fewer members as time goes in.

That would be an awful thing to have happen, but it doesn't seem the AFT leadership is too worried because they continue to treat the rank and file like serfs to be ruled from above.

Original Post:

AFT Leaders Say, You Don't Like The Hillary Endorsement, You're Free To Leave The Union 

A functionary of the American Federation of Teachers explains how AFT members have no right to public dissent of  AFT leadership decisions and if they don't like what the AFT leadership did by endorsing Hillary Clinton for president 16 months out, they're free to leave the union:

@msmoskop @BiancaTanis @nysut @AFTunion decision making becuz everyone goes & does what they want regardless. In democracy you respect the

— Leo Casey (@LeoECasey) July 13, 2015

@msmoskop @BiancaTanis @nysut @AFTunion democratic decision and abide by it. If you can't abide by it, then you always have right to leave

— Leo Casey (@LeoECasey) July 13, 2015

@msmoskop @BiancaTanis @nysut @AFTunion and join a different organization or not be part of any organization.

— Leo Casey (@LeoECasey) July 13, 2015

That's Leo Casey, Randi Weingarten's long-time propaganda guy, telling AFT member Megan Moskop why she has no right to complain about the "democratic decision" reached by the autocratic leadership of the American Federation of Teachers, with its "executive board" controlled by AFT President Randi Weingarten voting "democratically" for the endorsement of Hillary Clinton after the union used Hillary Clinton's pollsters to poll a little over a thousand AFT members and use this as justification for the endorsement 16 months out from the election.

It's interesting that Leo Casey would suggest AFT members who don't like the AFT leadership's decision on the Clinton endorsement leave the union, because that's exactly the thing that might happen next year if the Supreme Court rules in the Friedrichs case that teachers cannot be compelled to pay union dues and have those dues used for lobbying or other business they do not agree with.

If you go back through Perdido Street School blog here, you'll see various commenters talk about wanting to leave the union, decertify the union, start their own union and/or otherwise hope for RICO charges for the current union leadership because they feel disenfranchised by the AFT/UFT/NYSUT leadership.

The big complaint for many AFT/UFT/NYSUT members is that union leaders do not listen to concerns of the rank and file, that they make top-down decisions and attack anybody who disagrees with them.

The Hillary Clinton endorsement is just the latest "Hey, you don't like what we do? Too @#$%ing bad!" response from the AFT leadership, with the cranky Leo Casey dishing out the smack down.

You would think given the enormity of the Friedrichs case, the union leadership would be more amenable to member concerns, that they would be thinking, "Hey, we could lose the right to compel members dues, so maybe, you know, we should start to work with members instead of work on them...maybe we should be more member-responsive instead of member-dismissive when the rank and file raise concerns."

You would think they might react that way, given Friedrichs, but you'd be wrong - instead it's just the usual defensive response, part condescension/part insult, that if you don't like what the AFT does, leave it, if you don't abide by the top-down imposed "democratic" decision from the AFT leadership, you're an anarchist.

The next insult - usually the last one the AFT leadership and/or their functionaries level in fights with members - is that you're anti-union if you don't support the leadership's decisions, and you can bet that's coming next from Leo and Company (I know because I've had that leveled at me on Twitter when I've criticized AFT/UFT/NYSUT strategy or decisions in the past.)

Casey may just get his wish next year after the Supreme Court ruling on Friedrichs if teachers are given the choice to pay union dues or not, and while I think it would be a mistake for teachers to stop paying dues to the AFT because the union leaders run the union for themselves only and are completely unresponsive to members' concerns or criticisms, you can see why some might do it.

Who wants to pay the salary, perks and second pensions of autocrats like Weingarten and Casey as they make top-down decisions that members consider harmful to their interests, then dismiss member concerns with insults and "Hey, you don't like it, leave!" retorts?

I was hoping that the AFT leadership would start to become more responsive to members with the Freidrichs case looming next year, that they would feel the need to engage with members over concerns and criticism rather than just do the usual insult/dismissal game, but it seems, given the Casey pushback to the Clinton endorsement decision, this will not be the case.

Instead we are being told if AFT members don't like the decision, they can leave the union and go elsewhere.

It will be interesting to see how many take Leo up on his invitation if the Supreme Court rules against unions in the Freidrichs case.

I'm betting many will.

And then AFT leaders will call these people names, claim they are anti-union or whatever, instead of thinking, "You know, maybe we can't run the union the way we always have anymore, maybe we actually, you know, have to listen to members instead of just dismiss them and do what we want..."

It is a real shame that the AFT leadership does not seem to see the disaster that is coming down the pike if they continue to run the union for their own benefit, ambition and aggrandizement.

As I wrote earlier, I won't stop paying dues nor take Leo up on his invitation to leave the AFT but given the disenfrachisement many rank and filers feel toward the union, I would bet many others do.

The AFT leadership believes itself untouchable, what with the rigged election processes wherein loyalty oaths and dished out perks and privileges are used to keep the union functionaries in lie and continue to support the leadership.

But see how well that works if and when the rank and file are given a choice to pay dues or not.

You can see from Randi Weingarten's Twitter feed and Facebook page that she's feeling some of the heat after the AFT announced it had endorsed Hillary Clinton for president 16 months out from the election.

The AFT is the first major labor organization to announce an endorsement for 2016.

There is a lot of talk on the Internet that this could really be the watershed moment when AFT members finally realize Randi Weingarten and the AFT leadership doesn't care about them , that they see the union only as a vehicle for their own benefit, advancement and aggrandizement.

A commenter here at Perdido Street School says - nahh:

Stop. RANDI WILL CONTINUE TO BE THE LEADER OF THE AFT, WILL CONTINUE TO BE FOISTED ABOUT AS THE FACE AND VOICE OF ORGANIZED TEACHERS AND WILL CONTINUE TO SELL US OUT. Why? Because she knows that teachers don't have what it takes to remove her. And we don't. She has F'd us soooooo many times and what did we do (besides complain)? Yup. Nothing. Same goes for NYSUT. We had an RA this year. Not a peep. Turns out teachers were only a strong and formidable political force when it was easy...when leadership was loud and we weren't so removed from the labor movement's origins....and when we didn't face existential threats. We are going to lose it all. Period. Full stop. We cant even get our unions on our side. We don't have what it takes
Sorry folks. We kind of suck. We don't even know what a rampart is, let alone know how to storm one. This is what it looks like when a generation or two don't meet the challenge of their time.

What say you out there - watershed moment for many in the AFT or just another one of those moments when people get angry for a while, then it all dies down?

Gadfly on the Wall:

The manner in which this endorsement was reached is somewhat mysterious.

This much seems certain:

1) The AFT executive board invited all of the candidates to meet with them and submit to an interview. No Republican candidates responded.

2) Democrats including Bernie Sanders, Martin O’Malley and Clinton were interviewed in private.

3) The executive committee voted to endorse Clinton.

4) NOW the interviews are scheduled to be released to the public.

This is a perplexing timetable. Why would the AFT endorse BEFORE releasing the interviews? Ostensibly, the executive council used these interviews to help make its decision. Shouldn’t that same information have been available to rank and file members of the union before an endorsement was made?

Nahh - because given Randi Weingarten's relationship with Bonnie and Clyde, er, Bill and Hillary, the endorsement was always going to be Hillary Clinton.

The interviews were a sham, the polling the AFT claims to have conducted around the endorsement was a sham, the timetable was a sham and the endorsement was a sham.

AFT leaders just happened to make it even more of a sham by announcing the endorsement so far out.

More from Gadfly:

Which polls produced which results? The press release says AFT members prefer Clinton 3-1. But even if Clinton came out on top consistently, surely the results weren’t identical on every poll. Maybe she got 75% on one and 65% on another.

The AFT hasn’t released everything, but the organization’s website gives us a memo about ONE of these phone surveys. This national survey of membership planning to vote in Democratic primaries found 67% picked Clinton. However, only 1,150 members participated! That’s a far cry from the more than 1 million cited in the press release.

...

But that’s only one survey. Where is the rest of the data? Where is the raw information from this survey? Where is the data from all these other outreach attempts and on-line activities? How many took phone surveys? How many took on-line surveys? And what were the results in each case?

If union members really did endorse Clinton, that’s fine. But many of us would like to see the proof.

There is no other data - the union conducted one poll, geared the questions to an outcome they had already decided upon, and used this as "proof" that 1.6 million AFT members wanted Hillary Clinton endorsed.

The process was rigged for an outcome Weingarten wanted.

The Hillary Clinton endorsement 16 months out from the actual election is just the latest example of how the AFT is a sham union run by sham union leaders who see the union as a vehicle for their own ambitions, aggrandizement, and financial benefit.

I'm on the road, so blogging is light, but I cannot let the news that the AFT endorsed the pro-Common Core, pro-charter school Hillary Clinton for president go by without a post.

First, the official news:

The American Federation of Teachers is endorsing Hillary Clinton.

The endorsement was expected from the 1.6 million-member union, which represents workers including teachers, nurses and college and university employees.

On Twitter, Weingarten addressed the early endorsement. “Members want to shape the debate, not chase it. 79% of primary voters want us to endorse in the primary,” she tweeted.

AFT said it conducted a long, thoughtful process before making its decision. Members had multiple opportunities to weigh in on the decision. Some 79 percent who vote in Democratic primaries said the union should endorse a candidate, and Clinton was the favorite by a three-to-one margin.
The National Education Association, the nation’s larger teachers’ union with nearly 3 million members, hasn’t made a decision about its endorsement, and one isn’t expected until the fall. It did not endorse either Clinton or Barack Obama in 2008.

Jeb Bush raised over a hundred million dollars for the primary campaign so far - you can bet he'll raise a ton more as the campaign goes on.

Given the fundraising, Bush remains a good shot to be the eventual GOP nominee for 2016.

By endorsing Hillary Clinton this early, the AFT can be taken for granted by the Clinton campaign for the rest of the campaign cycle.

God forbid Randi Weingarten and the sellouts at the AFT would say, "You know, Hillary talked a good game when we were met with her, but so did Barack Obama when we met with him and so did Bill Clinton when we met with him and in each of those instances we remember that actions did not match the words.  So we're withholding an endorsement and will NOT work for Hillary Clinton UNTIL we are assured she will NOT continue her husband's, George Bush's and Barack Obama's pro-privatization, anti-public education policies.  If we are not assured of this, we will NOT work for Hillary Clinton and will work to make sure that other labor groups do not as well."

Instead of playing some hardball and showing Clinton why the AFT shouldn't be taken for granted, the AFT announced an endorsement 16 months before the election, six months before the first caucus/primary.

Nobody I know is surprised by the AFT endorsement - Weingarten's closeness to the Clintons all but assured that.

But to announce the endorsement this early, to do so without any assurances from Clinton that she will support public schools except for some meaningless campaign rhetoric in a statement throws away leverage the union could have used against Clinton as things tighten in the campaign.

This is a pattern for the AFT/UFT/NYSUT - throwing away leverage and giving the neoliberal politicians what they want.

We saw this with the UFT when they endorsed Merryl Tisch's pal Bill Thompson in the NYC mayoral primary and we saw it with NYSUT and the UFT when they refused to endorse Zephyr Teachout against Andrew Cuomo in last year's gubernatorial election and threatened the Working Families Party with dissolution if Teachout was given the party nod.  We saw it too when Weingarten helped out the Cuomo campaign buy calling for Cuomo's troubled running mate, Kathy Hochul.

There is never a moment in time when the AFT/UFT/NYSUT leadership doesn't go out of their way to throw out their political leverage, to take political actions that make the unions inconsequential, to sell out the rank and file for their own political expediency.

Weingarten loves access and she loves media attention - the Clinton endorsement gives her both.

But it doesn't give the AFT rank-and-file any political benefit as whatever political leverage we had gets thrown away 16 months early.

As such, it is a just another example of why the AFT is an inconsequential union that may go the way of the dinosaurs when the Supreme Court weighs in on the Friedrichs case.

A serious of tweets with Arthur Goldstein, Tim Farley and Randi Weingarten on the state of teaching in New York today:

@rweingarten @JudithMalys #CommonCore is a big part of why they don't feel respected. Teacher autonomy is gone in this country.

— Tim Farley (@tfarley1969) June 28, 2015

@TeacherArthurG @tfarley1969 @rweingarten @JudithMalys Top-down imposed curriculum comes w/ it in many schools.

— rbe (@perdidostschool) June 29, 2015

@TeacherArthurG @tfarley1969 @rweingarten @JudithMalys Coupled w/ constant Danielson eval, like Lucy on assembly line.

— rbe (@perdidostschool) June 29, 2015

@TeacherArthurG @tfarley1969 @rweingarten @JudithMalys Or the Little Tramp in Modern Times - https://t.co/IqThFflvm9

— rbe (@perdidostschool) June 29, 2015

Truth is, teaching in many New York schools these days is EXACTLY like the Little Tramp on the assembly line in Modern Times, especially when the EngageNY curriculum is used:

Close read incomprehensible piece, ask text-based questions about excerpt, close read same incomprehensible piece (sometimes same incomprehensible excerpt!), ask text-based questions about it, repeat ad nauseam until final assessment that tests retention of said material.

Have a lesson plan printed out with EVERY step, EVERY activity timed to the second, EVERY question asked of students with expected (and necessary) responses under them, EVERY activity ending in an assessment, EVERY do now activity text-based and "rigorous" (drill-and-kill starts from the very beginning of class and goes right to the end) - this is the daily experience of many teachers in New York's schools.

And God help you if you're slated for a Danielson drive-by observation on the day when you decide to deviate from the above assembly line teaching - you're almost guaranteed a "developing" or "ineffective" evaluation for the lesson in many schools.

Randi Weingarten says teachers feel disrespected and need to be respected?

Respect starts and ends with the autonomy to write curriculum, teach that curriculum as one sees fit, assess students as one sees fit, have the freedom to deviate from teaching methods and lesson plans imposed from above, and not be forced to teach from a lesson plan so completely controlled and rote that it sucks the life and soul out of the learning and the classroom.

Alas, Randi Weingarten and union leaders, through their collaboration with education reformers, have brought us the current assembly line teaching mess.

Randi Weingarten thinks teachers need to be respected?

Great - she should start respecting teachers herself by ceasing to "collaborate" with reformers on reforms that strip teachers of autonomy, creativity, and professionalism.

End the assembly line teaching and evaluations.

Here is a commentary by Kathy Holhul at Syracuse.com in which she asserts overcrowding and poor building conditions in public schools are good reasons to support more charter schools and tax credits for private schools:

Many critics try to argue that alternative schools, such as religious and charter schools, are somehow hurting the overall education system by taking away resources from traditional public schools. They argue that the governor should revoke all support for religious or charter schools – effectively abandoning those students – to focus just on public schools. They claim that this would be fair, but this just doesn't stand up to reason and here's why: 

There are roughly 4,500 public schools across the state – many of which are at capacity or overcrowded, and some are even utilizing trailers as classrooms. One hundred seventy-eight of those schools are failing, and many of them have been for 10 years or more.

Now imagine if the more than 400,000 students who are currently in charter or private schools – representing approximately 15 percent of the state's student population – had to attend one of those at-capacity, overcrowded or failing public schools. Who benefits from that scenario? Surely not the public school students who would find classroom space and resources stretched even further.

Can you follow the logic?

Many public schools are overcrowded, there's not enough space to house students in classrooms so decrepit trailers are used instead - and the way to solve these problems is to take money that could go to public schools and alleviate overcrowding and build new facilities and give that money to charters and private schools instead.

This is the same Kathy Hochul that AFT President Randi Weingarten robocalled for during the Democratic primary, claiming she was an excellent advocate for public schools.

Here's some advocacy for you - Hochul says public schools are overcrowded and falling apart, so let's take money that could go to public schools and give it to charters and private schools instead.

From the "She's Full Of Crap" file comes this:

BUFFALO—American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten regrets campaigning for Governor Andrew Cuomo's running mate in last year’s elections, she told Capital during a union convention on Saturday.

Weingarten, former president of New York City’s United Federation of Teachers, voiced a last-minute robocall supporting current lieutenant governor Hochul last September when the former Buffalo congresswoman faced what appeared to be a serious challenge from an anti-Cuomo insurgent candidate, Tim Wu, in the Democratic primary. (Wu, a Fordham University law professor, ran with Zephyr Teachout, whose surprisingly strong challenge to Cuomo led to an unflattering result for the governor.)

...

“Look, Kathy Hochul as a congresswoman was a terrific congresswoman,” Weingarten said, after addressing more than 2,000 New York State United Teachers members who gathered in Buffalo for their annual convention. “And on balance, she would have been, and she should be, a terrific lieutenant governor. But what’s happened is that actions speak louder than words.

 “In seeing what we’ve seen, I’m really disappointed, and I regret what she’s done, and I regret actually making it clear that she was terrific beforehand,” Weingarten said, when asked directly whether she regretted doing the robocall."

Hochul was a terrific congresswoman?

What the hell is Weingarten talking about?

Hochul was a congresswoman for less than one term.

She won a special election on May 25, 2011 to fill Representative Chris Lee's seat after he resigned from Congress.

She lost her re-election bid in November 2012.

She was a congresswoman for a little over a year.

After that, she became a bank lobbyist.

Yeah, a bank lobbyist.

Weingarten is so full of crap when she says she supported Hochul because she was a terrifc congresswoman.

She supported Hochul because this was a back alley way of supporting Cuomo.

Not that Cuomo cared because, as he said right in front of Weingarten at a Forbes forum months before the election, he planned to "break" public schools as soon as he was re-elected.

He's followed through on that promise and Weingarten is complicit in his crimes against public schools and public school teachers.

We've let her have it before over this, but she kept defending the robocalls.

I guess that defense, given the virulence with which Cuomo has gone after teachers, has even started to sound hollow in her own ears.

She's trying to walk back the robocall now, but she fools few with her jive.

Weingarten supported Hochul as a way to support Cuomo.

That was true then and it's still true now, no matter how she tries to spin it.

From Ken Lovett at the Daily News:

ALBANY — Fordham Law School professor Zephyr Teachout urged parents on Sunday to refuse to have their kids take the controversial statewide assessment exams slated for this week.

Saying “high-stakes testing is really hurting our kids,” Teachout — who last year mounted an unsuccessful Democratic primary challenge against Gov. Cuomo — told parents in a recorded phone message that they have a “constitutional right” to refuse the tests for their kids without facing sanctions.

She said New Yorkers overwhelmingly oppose the tests, which she claimed are designed to ensure that 70% of kids fail.

The call was sponsored by a coalition calling itself New York State Allies For Public Education.

This is the biggest education-related robocall since Randi Weingarten recorded one for Governor Cuomo's bank lobbyist running mate/charter school shill Kathy Hochul.

Note once again that parents have the "constitutional right" to refuse the test for their kids without facing consequences.

Because the supporters of the Endless Testing regime are trying to get parents to believe otherwise.

Randi Weingarten on twitter:

@HastingsTeacher @lacetothetop - nat'l civil rights grps support annual tests- they r working w/us on curbing the hi -stakes @civilrightsorg
— Randi Weingarten (@rweingarten) April 11, 2015

It's true that many national civil rights organizations support annual testing, Common Core and other tenets of the corporate education reform agenda.

It's also true that many of them are on the take:

@rweingarten @chiefwally @HastingsTeacher @lacetothetop @civilrightsorg Many of those orgs are on Gates payroll.
— rbe (@perdidostschool) April 12, 2015

@rweingarten @chiefwally @HastingsTeacher @lacetothetop @civilrightsorg Gates has bought off many orgs w/ $$$$.
— rbe (@perdidostschool) April 12, 2015

Whenever you see somebody from one of these national civil rights organizations tossing around the "Testing is a civil right" rhetoric, go to the Gates Foundation website and search to see how much money they're taking from Bill Gates.

Today for example, Michael Lomax, the president and CEO of the United Negro College Fund, who has a piece in the NY Daily News claiming that parents who opt their children out state tests are hurting all children but especially children of color:

By opting out, parents do a disservice to all children, not just their own. Without an ample number of test takers, we will lose perspective on how our children are truly doing against the higher bar. This is especially important for students who need a better education the most: children of color, children from low-income families and those who require special education services or are learning English.

This spring, three of my grandchildren who attend public charter schools in Atlanta will take these tougher exams. The exams will tell us if they are meeting rigorous national and global academic standards. If they are not, their parents and I will fight to ensure they get immediate support, so upon high-school graduation, they will be genuinely prepared for our country’s best universities and a globally-competitive workforce.

In the 20th century, we fought for our right to an equal education. Now, 60 years after Brown vs. Board of Education, we are still fighting. Parents who opt out or urge others to do so may mean well, but they are wrong.

No one should be against higher standards or tougher tests. On the contrary, this is exactly what we should be fighting for. We know that the alternative is much worse.

Before I read Lomax's piece in the Daily News, I went on over to the Gates Foundation website and searched for how much money Gates has paid to the United Negro College Fund over the last decade.

It's a lot:

United Negro College Fund, Inc.

---

Date: August 1999
Purpose: to support the Gates Millennium Scholars Program
Amount: $1,525,380,950
Term: 316
Topic: Scholarships
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Grantee Website: http://www.uncf.org

Yes, that's over a billion and a half dollars the United Negro College Fund has received from Gates since 1999 to provide scholarships.

That's an awful lot of money, but it's not the only cash the United Negro College Fund has gotten from Gates - here's the rest.

Now it's possible that Michael Lomax, CEO of the United Negro College Fund, would love testing and Common Core without the billion and a half+ in cash his organization has received from the Gates Foundation to fund scholarships.

But getting that kind of help from Gates sure does cut down on the time the organization has to spend fundraising and you can bet neither Lomax nor the United Negro College Fund want to lose that source of funding.

Now I dunno if somebody at the Gates Foundation called in a chit and "suggested" Lomax write his pro-testing screed or if Lomax just decided to be pro-active on his own and do it himself.

But you can bet it's not an accident that a national civil rights organization that is receiving over a billion and a half dollars in cash from the Gates Foundation is pushing an education reform agenda that makes the Gates Foundation happy.

And as I tweeted back to Randi, this is true almost every time I see some national civil rights organization or national civil rights figure pushing the "Testing Is A Civil Right" talking point - they're inevitably on the Gates Foundation payroll.

La Raza?

You bet.

The Leadership Conference?

You bet.

National Urban League.

You bet.

Children Defense Fund?

You bet.

The list goes on - pick a civil rights organization that has signed on to the "Testing Is A Civil Right" movement and you'll almost inevitably see they've taken money from Gates in the past or are currently taking money from Gates now.

Not every organization is getting the kind of cash the United Negro College Fund is getting from Gates, but donations are donations and every dollar that comes to these organizations from Gates is one less dollar they have to raise somewhere else.

And again, it's possible some of these organizations would happily push the "Testing Is A Civil Right" movement without the Gates Foundation payola, but you can bet receiving the Gates cash helps grease the wheels on that movement.

Randi Weingarten loves to trot out the excuse that national civil rights organizations are backing yearly standardized tests every time she is challenged on twitter for the AFT's support of yearly standardized tests, but as you can see from this post, that excuse is deceptive since so many of these organizations are taking money from the pro-testing/pro-Common Core Gates Foundation.

And in fact, Randi and the AFT have been on the Gates payroll in the past, so she knows very well just how the Gates cash influences policy support.

The next time you see a civil rights organization or leader trotting out the "Testing Is A Civil Right" rhetoric, check them at the Gates Foundation website and see just how much payola they're taking.

And the next time you see AFT President Randi Weingarten defending her own support of yearly standardized testing by pointing out the national civil rights organizations who also support yearly standardized testing, challenge her on it by pointing out the common denominator in all that support - the Gates Foundation cash.

As we await news of the latest teacher evaluation reform in New York State, let's revisit February 2012 for another big announcement on teacher evaluations by Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, former NYSED Commissioner John King, UFT President Michael Mulgrew and former NYSUT President Richard Iannuzzi:

ALBANY — Student test scores and classroom observations will be used to assess New York educators under a new evaluation system announced Thursday that Gov. Andrew Cuomo heralded as a national model.

The agreement between state officials and union leaders ended two years of tense negotiations and put a court battle on hold.

With the clock ticking on a tight deadline, Cuomo and educational leaders on Thursday said they had broken through the major logjams standing in the way of the new teacher evaluation system — which would also bring in approximately $1 billion in federal funding over the next few years.

The move also strengthens the role of the state Education Department, which must approve the evaluation agreements developed by each of the state's 700 school districts.

"Today is a great day for the schools in the state of New York. Government works today," Cuomo said, as he was joined by Education Commissioner John King Jr. as well as Michael Mulgrew and Richard Iannuzzi, heads of the United Federation of Teachers and New York State United Teachers.

"Today's agreement is good for students and fair to teachers," Iannuzzi added.

To get the federal funding, the new evaluation system must be completed and implemented by year-end. Unions and management of local school districts, including the vast New York City system, had been at loggerheads over the weight to give student performance on standardized tests and the appeals process for teachers who receive the lowest rating.

With that in mind, Cuomo said he would impose his own system in his budget plan if unions and department officials couldn't agree by Thursday — which marks the deadline for the governor's 30-day amendments, or final touches, to his budget proposal for the 2012-13 fiscal year.

The announcement followed an all-night bargaining session in which the warring sides appeared to compromise on two key issues. The New York City-based UFT and State Education Department agreed on a plan for appealing evaluations in which teachers scored poorly and might face firing; and NYSUT and the state resolved differences over the so-called local test portion of the evaluation.

Under the plan, teachers are evaluated on a 100-point scale: 60 points are based on classroom observations and student portfolios; 20 points come from scores that students get on a standardized state test; and another 20 points come from tests developed by the district or a third party.

Much of the fighting between the labor leaders and state officials was sparked by Cuomo's last-minute push to allow student test scores to count for up to 40 percent of an evaluation. Districts have the option to use state tests for up to 40 percent of an evaluation, but it must be bargained with the union. NYSUT's Iannuzzi said the union would likely end the lawsuit it filed last spring over the increased weight given to state tests once the new evaluation system is finalized.

Additionally, the State Education Department will now have veto power over evaluations that are deemed insufficient. Unions and school districts will also develop a "curve" for the point system by which teachers and principals are rated. Educators will fall in one of four categories: ineffective, developing, effective and highly effective.

Those rated "ineffective" could be fired if they do not improve.

King down played the concerns of some school administrators that the evaluation system would add significant new work to the strained staffing at many schools. He said the new evaluation system will also "dramatically change" the jobs of many principals for the better, by putting them in the classrooms where they can offer constructive feedback to their staff.

"The role of the principal is to provide their teams with instructional leadership," he said. "Principals should be spending significant time in the classroom."

So far, about 100 school districts statewide have agreed on evaluation plans and another 250 are close.

Still, questions remain about how the State Education Department will regulate this new system and whether it has the capacity to review and approve them all by year's end.

"Whether they are going to be able to approve these new evaluations as efficiently as it was described here today, I'm a little bit suspicious," said Tim Kremer, executive director of the state School Boards Association.

And Iannuzzi stressed that the relationships between school districts and their unions will still be a key factor in whether the evaluation plans go smoothly.

"The ingredient you can't write in law is the ingredient of collaboration and trust" between unions and management, he said.

It's interesting to see how much has changed in three years.

Where three years ago they were touting principals as the drivers of observations and fonts of educational wisdom, in the latest iteration of New York State teacher evaluations as pushed by Governor Cuomo, the principal has been superseded by outside evaluators.

Back in February 2012, they said principals would be in classrooms "where they belong", offering "feedback" to their staffs.

In the latest iteration, outside observers will drive by on some unknown timetable to observe teachers they don't know in schools they've never been to in order to provide meaningful evaluations of teachers.

Yeah, that'll work great.

Want to bet we'll be re-doing APPR teacher evaluations in a year or two again when the plan they're working on now turns out to be a miserable failure.

The one constant you'll notice in all the iterations of evaluations in New York State is that the union leadership is always there on stage next to Cuomo for the sell-out announcement.

Bet whatever comes in the next day or so that some teacher union head will offer some variation on the Iannuzzi prouncement from back in the day:

"Today's agreement is good for students and fair to teachers," Iannuzzi added.

Because rhetoric about how good the sell-outs they negotiate never gets old or stale in the mouths of teachers union heads.