Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Ed Notes Predicts Mulgrew Response to 10 Questions on Evaluation Deal

The 10 questions below are being handed out at today's UFT Delegate Assembly by reps from the State of the Union organizing crew but Ed Notes has used its clairvoyant powers (with the assistance of Jeff Kaufman) to divine the answers in advance.

(Mulgrew Responses in Red) 
Mulgrew: Why is this deal different from all others before it?
Oh, sorry, those are another set of questions.


1.    When will the text of the evaluation agreement reached on February 16 be released?
Perhaps when the full text of all of the side agreements, grievance arbitrations and hell freezes over (not necessarily in that order)
2.    Unlike the February 16 deal, will the final evaluation deal with the city get put to a vote?
You’re kidding, right? You will vote only when I tell you to vote and no sooner.
3.    Why weren't the turnaround schools part of the deal? What organizing is happening to protect those schools?
What does organizing mean?
4.    How will we prevent the State evaluations from being published in the New York Times? Why wasn't a special exception to FOIA for teachers part of the deal?
We are starting a libel suit as soon as we can. Look to our response to question #1 for the timetable.
5.    Given the inordinately high error rate in TDRs, how is the UFT going to prevent similarly inaccurate measures from being used to rate teachers under the new system? 
We are putting together a curriculum that will teach the finer points of cheating.
6.    Why are only 13% of observations subject to the appeals process? How will the UFT decide who is part of the 13% who get a fair appeals process? 
We settled on 13% because it is an unlucky number
7.    Who hires the "validators"?  Will they be hired in a way similar to the PIP+ evaluators, which have found against teachers in a vast majority of cases?
The DOE. We only hire Unity hacks.
8.    Why did the UFT agree to allow teachers rather than the DOE to bear the burden of proof when they have been deemed ineffective under ANY circumstances? Isn't this like saying that sometimes one can be considered guilty until proven innocent? How is due process possible when this is the case? 
We have redefined the notion of due process. It will now be known as do process. We have won a significant victory for our members. You will see how we do process on our members.
9.    Given the deal mandates one unannounced observation a year, what happens to our contractually protected right for a lesson-specific pre-observation conference for teachers in danger of an adverse rating?
Deal? What deal?
10.  If your goal in negotiating the local 20% is performance based assessment rather than standardized testing, how will you get this approved by State Education Department?  Especially since the state can threaten to withhold the 4% increase in budgeting if an agreement isn't reached.
Look. You worry about teaching. We will take care of the rest. Now stop asking such silly questions.


reality-based educator said...

It's like Carnac the Magnificent is back -only these predictions aren't funny at all.

They do sound true, however.

Uncle Mike said...

Hey Norm,

I thought that conversation was confidential.

Anonymous said...

Funny, I don't remmember these questions bein g answered quite like this. People this bloog is becoming like the NY Post. Good for a read while your taking your morning .... why doesn't the person print the entire answer that was given ....not the sliced and diced version......really??

ed notes online said...

You were out of the room drinking the Koolaid.

And just like the post Ed Notes will be sending a reporter and photog to your house to ask why you love Kool-aid so much.

You are welcome to print all the answers in this space. They will be even funnier than the phony ones.

Anonymous said...

Just like the koolaide that was served by rev Jim Jones!