Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Exposing Revive Jive: Lola Kelly, East Rochester TA Pres and NEA State Rep

I come not to praise the current leadership of NYSUT but also not to bury it -- Yet. ... EdNotes
 
Before you read this from Lola Kelly, president of East Rochester TA and statewide representative to the National Education Association, note that Michael Mulgrew supported giving John King the power to decide our fate on APPR and even praised his decision. 

Just one more contradiction in a sea of falsehoods being spread by the Revive - or Rebury NYSUT, as NYC Educator has dubbed them.
Also read our pal at

B-LoEdScene Why I Don't Love My Union Options
If you are keeping score at home, and truthfully I don't think many teachers here in the Empire State are, NYSUT is in the middle of a significant fission...
B-Lo doesn't have anything to praise Iannuzzi about, but I expect he will have even less praise for the Revive NYSUT Jive when he does his follow-up.

None of us love the alternatives here and our little team of 8 stalwarts running in this election currently as independents (MORE Jumps into NYSUT Fray) and Arthur Goldstein Runs for NYSUT VP Against Pallotta) certainly face some headwinds. Key issue for me: What will be sorted out post-election and how will that affect the future of NYSUT and the AFT?
February 17, 2014

Hello Friends!
I have noticed some inconsistencies in the course of the campaign for the NYSUT executive officers and members of the Board of Directors. Allow me to call them to your attention.

1. The $10,000 table at the Cuomo fundraiser: At the Unity Caucus Steering Committee meeting which followed the January meeting of the Board of Directors, there was much discussion about the reason for the contribution.

Andy Pallotta defended the contribution in pragmatic terms, essentially saying it is necessary to stay connected with elected officials who are as powerful as the Governor. That is a rationale I can accept.

However, here is the contradiction: Andy Pallotta and Michael Mulgrew each emphatically said in three separate speeches, that they did not want to go to the fundraiser, but then Dick wanted to buy a ticket, so Andy went and Michael sent a representative.

So which was it? A pragmatic move that was necessary to keep an open line to a Governor who has the power to help or hurt us, or tickets purchased to keep an eye on Dick?
Why was it necessary to buy a full table at a fundraiser for a governor who has been an enemy of public schools and public school students?

2. The number of Vice President positions: Concern about losing a Vice President who was from upstate New York, who would represent our interests, was clearly and repeatedly articulated at an E.D. 5 and 6 meeting, at which Lee Cutler was the invited speaker. Lee responded by saying that all officers represented members statewide, despite their personal home origins.

So here is the contradiction: All of the members of the Revive slate are from downstate. A number of individuals affiliated with the Revive slate are challenging the incumbents in upstate seats on the Board of Directors. Why didn’t any of them choose to run for a position among the Executive Officers, to ensure an upstate presence among that group?

Hopefully, if the downstate-based members of the Revive slate win, they too will represent all of the members.

3. Complaints about APPR: The campaign has, in part, been about discontent with our APPR plan. In some cases, members seem to indicate that NYSUT could have prevented the implementation of the system of teacher evaluation, as if similar, but even worse plans have not been put in place in states nationwide.

The contradiction: The Commissioner had the authority to impose the percent of our evaluation based on student test scores, and seemed to have been poised to mandate 50% until NYSUT convinced the Legislature to amend the Taylor Law with language that restricted the portion based on standardized test scores to 20% and mandated bargaining for the remainder of the evaluation. Our plan is envied by teachers in other states because many, if not most are burdened with a structure that consigns 50% of their evaluation to the test scores of their students. A few states use a 30% model.

How is NYSUT a failure? Surely any of the teachers in those other states would gladly accept our APPR system.
Thank you for the opportunity to call these inconsistencies to your attention.

- Lola Kelly

1 comment:

  1. According to the language of the law regarding NY teacher evaluations, when the test scores are in the "ineffective" range, the teacher must be rated "ineffective" and after 2 ineffective ratings the school district can start the process to fire the teacher. Talk of percentages is meaningless if the test scores aren't high enough. So 20% really means 100% when the test scores don't reach the magic number set by NYS. That is why NYSUT has failed us. Talk of 20% vs 30% or 50% is a misleading and disingenuous argument.
    Roseanne McCosh, Bronx teacher

    ReplyDelete

Comments are welcome. Irrelevant and abusive comments will be deleted, as will all commercial links. Comment moderation is on, so if your comment does not appear it is because I have not been at my computer (I do not do cell phone moderating).