UFT Buries Voices of Dissent on APPR

I received this email to GEM awhile ago. More and more people are expressing their dissent while the UFT continues to sell the snake oil. The monthly district rep meetings are an outrage. It's all about what the UFT wants from the chapter leaders and never about their needs.

We are trying to get a chapter leader and delegate support group together to meet monthly, not only as a support mechanism but to function as a unit at the delegate assembly. If interested email me.

I have a follow-up on the same topic but am waiting for permission. Here is the Chapter Leader's email to GEM:

I am a NYC public school special educator, UFT chapter leader and a parent of a child in a public school.  I am also, currently, in a leadership for educational change program at Bank Street.  It came to my attention that the APPR legislation was passed a couple of weeks ago through my administrator.  It was also discussed in depth at Bank Street.  However, it was never mentioned by the UFT.

When I read under the subsection in the agreement (with our union leaders) "Rating System" that "Teachers or principals that are rated ineffective in the 40 points could not receive a developing score overall." http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/02162012teacherevaluations (which in effect leaves a teacher's evaluation hinging on test scores by 100%- not 40%)  I was ready to bring this up at a district chapter leader meeting.

Disappointingly, I was silenced by my district representative.  I was told to send her "proof" which I did, and never received a response.

I am wondering if, besides the change.org petition http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-the-public-shaming-and-unjust-firing-of-teachers, are teachers organizing to demand that our union leaders rescind their agreement to this measure?

What they are effectively doing is dangling the "New York City Expedited Appeals Process" as a big union victory, but not mentioning the fact that they agreed to a heavy value added measure for teacher evaluations.

Race to the Top funding comes with requirements to have such measures, but what, I wonder, has incentivized our union leaders to agree to a measure that could possibly lead to busting up our union.

I have helped start a parent advocacy group at the progressive public school I teach in, and I am informing my colleagues.  However, I am aware that public descent could lead to internal problems within our union that would make things very easy for private interests.  Please let me know if you are delving into this issue and if there is anything I can do to help.

Thank you, 

Afterburn
I published the same thoughts from 2 NYC parents about the UFT in this post:

REVEALING COMMENTS FROM 2 NYC PARENT ACTIVISTS

our District Leader insists that we do not have a new evaluation agreement- even with the information posted straight from Gov. Cuomo's office and NYSED.  

Here is Education Law §3012-c 

http://www.capregboces.org/LeaderToLeaderLinks/2010-2011/PDF/EdLaw3012.pdf 

If you wish, include the letter from Cuomo's office highlighting the "Rating System" subsection:  http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/02162012teacherevaluations

By the way, a new State testing securities director has been hired.  http://www.oms.nysed.gov/press/SEDHiresTestSecurityDirector.html  

Not to mention the millions allocated to NCS Pearson to design new tests for lower grades. 

I am confused by our UFT once filing a lawsuit for the value added measure to now being in agreement. 

Read it all:

Why is the UFT Ignoring This? Thoughts on Turnaround

And this too:

APPR Update(?) from NYCDOENUTS

CLARIFICATION: I received a call from a chapter leader after this was posted saying that at his district meetings he could say anything he wanted. In the follow-up discussion we touched on the fact that it is possible to say stuff but the context of the District meetings are geared towards the needs of the union hierarchy and not towards the schools. Remember, at one time the chapter leaders elected the DRs so to some extent they were beholden to them (but always consider that Unity Caucus still controlled the process and other than the Manhattan HS district only Unity people were elected, often without opposition.)