I left a bunch of comments on Gotham. Julie's great comment on the nycednews listserve is worth adding. I'm away from a computer but want to share. Julie hopes the UFT leadership won't fold. I don't have as much hope. She's young and hasn't faced 45 years of folding.
ATR Philip Nobile follows with a comment posted at Gotham on the DA where Mulgrew waxed poetic about Merryl Tisch --- since then she has put a knife in the back of the UFT.
----------
I don't know why I am even responding to this because these two Gates-funded, leave-the-classroom-before-5-yrs-work part-time-fake teachers are irrelevant...
But...
This part really bugged me-
"The biggest sticking point in negotiations was the UFT's insistence on an unnecessarily arduous appeals process."
An appeals process that is fair, transparent, and independent is absolutely necessary. Without it, educators will be beholden to serving administration first rather than children and families.
Google Peter Lamphere to understand how important this is. He recently won the first of two lawsuits to overturn politically-charged and completely unwarranted U ratings. He is one of the finest teachers and people I know, and his career was almost ended because of a rouge principal. What was the DOE's response when he won this lawsuit? They were "disappointed" bc the DOE believes that independent fact finding and a judge, who both cleared Peter, are irrelevant compared to the "judgment" of the principal. There are countless Peter Lampheres out there, who, because they advocated for their students, families, and/or colleague(s) they were given U ratings, with some eventually terminated or discontinued.
Before Evan and Sydney decide to buy their next editorial, perhaps they should go back and actually teach, understand the ramifications of what they are talking about, and ask themselves this important question: is the role of teacher evaluations to subordinate teachers or is it make sure we have the best teachers we possibly can working with our children. Obviously, it is the latter. An appeals process is a key part of teacher evaluations, without it, teachers cannot stand up to unfair, immoral or illegal practices that negatively affect the people they serve.
Those who know me know, I can be critical of the UFT (leadership). In this case, I applaud them tremendously for taking a stand on this and I hope they do not fold in this new round of negotiations. Teacher protections protect children, our interests are aligned. The overwhelming majority of teachers are working tremendously hard for our kids. For those that need support, we can make them better. For those that should choose another career (and let's remember in reality this is a very, very small number of folks, not the majority as the rhetoric out there makes it seem), we can fire them. What we cannot do is sacrifice a protection for a teacher to act in the best interest of a child or colleague over the objections or threats of a politically motivated principal or Department of Education.
Julie Cavanagh
Philip Nobile with a comment at Gotham Schools:
I was at the DA in 2009 when Mulgrew explained his sellout on the 20%. The UFT had always been opposed to linking test scores with teacher ratings. Leo Casey took a very hardline. I remember a seminar at 52 Broadway during which he tied a tin can on the idea. Nevertheless, without consulting the rank-in-file on this momentous labor policy shift, Mulgrew signed a “peace in our time” pact with SED. He told the DA that the 20% solution was necessary to secure Race to Top money and that things could have been worse. He took a bow for resisting SED’s preference for a floor of 40% , now resurrected by Cuomo and King. You don’t have to be Tom Paine to wish that Mulgrew had taken a stand before the slope got slippery.
I think Julie and others are missing a big point here. Yes it is wonderful that Unity/UFT is "standing up" in court right now for a fair appeals process, but they have endorsed an illogical spreadsheet-check-off evaluation system that will be overseen by inexperienced principals who often do not know how to teach nor observe instruction. Am I missing something here? I realize that this point is not actually lost on Julie and others; I guess I'm saying in the end, teachers, students and parents will lose again. You can't operate a school system that places a premium on standardized tests, spread-sheet evaluations and fear instead of building capacity and commitment amongst all school stakeholders.
ReplyDeleteUnity/UFT lost this battle already. It was years in the making.
And Norm, I'm with you. I'd bet my pension that whatever the courts, etc. decide, it will be a tremendous blow to our profession and our ability to teach kids in meaningful and authentic ways.
I think Julie gets it. See the commercial for State of the Union I posted which was written and narrated by Julie and she makes the exact point you did. What she is saying here is that she is proud of the UFT (I wouldn't use that word) for resisting the pressure for 40% so far and she hope they do not fold. I also hope they do not fold but expect they will --- once you develop the folding habit it is hard to break, especially when you are running an undemocratic union that keeps the membership in the dark as to what is really going on. (see if they run stories about the resistance in Chicago to Rhambo -- if I wanted to rouse my members I would but they don't because they really are worried about rousing the members because they just might begin to take a good look at how the union is run. Julie also has stressed the point that the UFT should make Peter Lamphere the poster boy for a fight back to illustrate the political nature of U ratings.
ReplyDeleteImagine Peter in a commercial talking about his 2 U-ratings. Think that might get noticed?
Norm, I think if they put Peter in a commercial, the media would have a field day with his political beliefs. And yes of course Julie gets it. She's awesome. And yes they will fold. They have to fold because they are inextricably bound to the dems. Perhaps I am a bit bitter. I am not proud of the UFT. I am a proud unionist. I feel fortunate to be a part of union. But our union is in part responsible for the mess we are in today. No vision. No imagination. No balls.
ReplyDeleteI was curious after reading the last comment in regard to Peter Lamphere. Wondered if he was just an instigator solely for the sake of instigating that any "boss" may want to get rid of before he stirs up some trouble. I "googled" the guy-came upon the "Rate my Teacher" link-seems that this guy is an excellent teacher-I would print out that stuff and duplicate it enough times to shove it in the faces of Walcott and his gang at one of those big meetings-would also print up copies to hand out to the audience.
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned, Mulgrew immediately folded on the new assessments within a month or so of his "assuming the position."
ReplyDeleteThis is the neutron bomb which will clear out many bodies, allowing the Tweedies to sweep them out and take over.
Mulgrew is a Weingarten puppet. He's not operating with autonomy, even if he had the skill to do so. What Weingarten didn't tell us about that "huge" '05 raise that gave us "comparable salaries to Long Island" was it would be THE LAST RAISE WE EVER GET !
Peter is not an instigator but doing what a functioning chapter leader should do -- defending people under attack which is why he came under attack. Of course in the world of Tweed (and all too often the UFT too) anyone who stands up for people is an instigator. I was certainly viewed that way. The UFT wants compromisers as we can see in just about every policy. I do think there's a way to compromise but you can't start out with that position which the UFT does. Why not ask for 20 in a class and make the case for it and then compromise -- even at 31 that is one step better than exists. But to not even ask because you think you can't get it ----
ReplyDelete